Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move,
That, if at any time the Chairman of Ways and Means is of opinion that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bills then referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order III the adoption of such a course is desirable, he may apportion the Bills between two Committees on Unopposed Bills, the composition and quorum of each being those prescribed by Standing Order III as modified by this Order, and each Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, and all the Standing Orders applying to the Committee on Unopposed Bills shall apply to each Committee:
That the Chairman of Ways and Means have power to select from the panel appointed under Standing Order III one Member to act as Chairman at every meeting of a Committee on Unopposed Bills at which neither the Chairman of Ways and Means nor the Deputy Chairman is present, and at any such meeting the Member so selected shall be a Member of the Committee in addition to the three Members mentioned in Standing Order III:
That during the present Session the Committee of Selection have power to add to the panel appointed under Standing Order III.
The House may wish to have a word of explanation from me on this and the other Motion which stand on the Order Paper in my name. This first Motion relates to unopposed Bills and enables or authorises the setting up of a second Unopposed Bills Committee if the press of business requires it. The second Motion enables the Opposed Bills Committee to have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker so as to ensure uniformity. Both Motions have been passed in each Session since 1937, and I hope, with that explanation, the House will be good enough to agree thereto.

Question put, and agreed to.

COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS CONTAINING LOCAL LEGISLATION CLAUSES.

Ordered:
That in the case of an Opposed Bill promoted by a municipal or other local authority containing clauses by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary and other Local Government matters in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law, the Committee to which the Bill is referred shall, when considering such clauses as aforesaid, have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. On page 673 it is stated against my name that on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates I shall call attention to the future of Civil Aviation. It should have been on the Air Estimates.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that is a misprint and was noticed. It has been put right.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (GENERAL MIHAILOVICH)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what our present relationship is with General Mihailovich; whether he is opposing the enemy; and whether we are sending him any equipment.

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): For operational reasons, I am unable to make a statement on these points at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST (EXCHANGE)

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for the hold-up of the exchange of 1,600 civilian internees from the Far East and the British Commonwealth, respectively; what steps have been taken to overcome these difficulties; and what is the outcome of the negotiations which have been proceeding since May, 1943.

Mr. Eden: It would not be in the interest either of the interned civilians whom we hope to repatriate or of our prisoners of war if we were to discuss in public these negotiations with an enemy Government and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the matter.

Mr. Hammersley: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that as far as the British Government are concerned, any obstacles which it is within their power to remove, will be removed, and that so far as other Governments are concerned, they are doing the best they possibly can to deal, with the situation?

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very anxious to reach agreement on this matter as we did in the earlier stage, but of course we are dealing with an enemy Government, for whom, fortunately, I have not to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (POST-WAR TREATMENT)

Major Nield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the Japanese atrocities against our prisoners of war in their hands, he will consider outlawing Japan, and making a public statement that after the war there can be no place for Japan among the civilised nations.

Mr. Eden: The question of the treatment to be accorded to Japan, as to our other enemies, after the war is clearly a matter for consultation between the Allied Governments concerned. His Majesty's Government would not therefore wish to make any unilateral declaration on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA AND IRAQ

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause a White Paper to be laid before Parliament describing the nature of the present Governments of Ethiopia and Iraq, and indicating the extent to which the British civil and military authority has been successful in securing co-operation from local native administrations in rebuilding the life of these countries.

Mr. Eden: Ethiopia and Iraq are independent States and it is not therefore

for me to lay a White Paper dealing with the general condition of their affairs.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government have no continuing responsibility for these two countries; and also that his answer does hot cover ex-enemy territory such as Eritrea and Italian Somaliland?

Mr. Eden: Iraq and Abyssinia are independent States. Certainly I have no responsibility for the conduct of their internal affairs, and those British subjects employed by them are, of course, working under those Governments. As regards enemy-occupied territories, they are in quite a different category and are not covered by my answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we rendering any assistance to Ethiopia in the rebuilding of her life?

Mr. Eden: Yes, we have been doing so. We have had advisers there for some considerable time giving help in that direction.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Considering the fact that this country and its troops were responsible for freeing Ethiopia from Italian rule, is there not some compact between this country and Ethiopia which can be laid before the House?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, there was an agreement between us and the Ethiopian Government at the time, which was made known to the House. I am dealing here only with those who are serving with these foreign Governments. I say it is not for me to give an account of the internal administration of these foreign States.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURRENDERED ITALIAN SHIPS (EMPLOYMENT)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ships of the Italian Navy which surrendered to the Allies are now taking part in the struggle against Germany or Japan.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr: A.V. Alexander): All the surrendered Italian warships that can be usefully employed are now taking part in appropriate theatres of operations.

Sir A. Southby: Will the First Lord say exactly what he means by "usefully employed" when talking of the Italian Fleet? Now that this nation which has caused the loss of so many British lives is our Ally, would it not be possible to have the heavy Italian units put to some useful purpose against the Japanese or the Germans?

Mr. Alexander: If I were to describe the use of the Italian ships, I should be giving information to the enemy, which I cannot possibly do. All I can say is that the majority of the ships are being usefully employed.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Have all the Italian ships concerned now been released by the Spanish Government?

Mr. Molson: Are these ships which are in use against the enemy manned by Italian or by British crews?

Mr. Alexander: By Italian crews.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

R.N.V.R. Officers (Promotion)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers serving in the R.N.V.R., on 3rd September, 1939, have since been promoted to the rank of Commodore or higher.

Mr. Alexander: One R.N.V.R. officer who was serving prior to the war has been granted the acting rank of Commodore, R.N.V.R.

Colonel Greenwell: Can the First Lord say why it has only been possible to promote such a very small number of these officers to this rank? It is not giving them very much encouragement, is it?

Mr. Alexander: The position arises on the establishment of Commodore, R.N.V.R., which exists under the arrangements made before the war. Of course, the promotion of other officers to acting rank of Commodore depends entirely on their experience.

Admiralty Messenģers (Train Accommodation)

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the great congestion on the railways, he will put an end to the practice

of reserving whole compartments for Admiralty messengers travelling alone.

Mr. Alexander: I regret I am unable to accept my Noble Friend's suggestion.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Would the First Lord look into the possibility of transferring this courier service to the roads? Has he made every attempt to see whether existing military motor services could not be used to release accommodation on the railways?

Mr. Alexander: Of course every inquiry has been made, but it is essential in all these long-distance journeys, especially the heavy traffic journeys which we have to make, to consider other matters like petrol, rubber and man-power.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not the case that these couriers usually travel by night in a sleeper which is only available for one person?

Mr. Alexander: That is not always the case.

Flyinģ Officers (Sea Service)

Captain Cobb: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether flying duties from a shore base are counted as sea time in the promotion of naval officers; and, if not, is it proposed to amend King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to avoid this discrimination against air service compared with sea service.

Mr. Alexander: No. Sir. No period of sea service is required as a condition of promotion of officers of the Air Branch. The only flying officers who are affected by the regulation in question are general service executive officers who have taken up flying duties. As these remain on the general list of executive officers they must be qualified for naval duties, including the command of H.M. ships, and for this purpose sea experience is essential. Their appointments are so arranged, however, that they undergo the short periods of sea time which are required for promotion, before they reach the promotion zone and they are thus not handicapped in their naval career by taking up flying duties.

Non-Operational Service (Awards)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the unrest among men with more than six months' non-operational service


on account of their inability to claim the 1939–43 Star, which is available to Navy and Merchant Navy personnel after six months' service afloat in areas of active operations; and if he will consider the award of a special decoration to such men after a period of six months' service.

Mr. Alexander: I am not aware of any widespread unrest of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The institution of a special award for non-operational service of six months or more in the Royal Navy would fall to be considered as part of the larger question of such an award being instituted for non-operational services generally.

Sir A. Southby: Is the First Lord not aware that there is in the Navy as in the Army very considerable dissatisfaction concerning the present regulations governing the award both of the 1939–43 Star and the Africa Star?

Mr. Alexander: I understand that that general issue is likely to be debated by the House very shortly.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask the First Lord how, if there is any dissatisfaction in the Navy, he is going to find out?

Mr. Alexander: We usually hear if there is anything of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (DRAINAGE SCHEME)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the steps being taken to drain the Laventille and Caroni Swamps in Trinidad, which constitute the biggest single malaria menace and reservoir of anopheles mosquito breeding in the Colony; and whether the land reclaimed from those swamps will be used for the cultivation of rice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. Plans have been made for the gradual draining of these swamps to be carried out as and when the necessary equipment and labour become available. Land reclaimed from swamps is at present being used for the cultivation of rice.

Mr. Riley: Is it not a fact that there is a great surplus of labour in Barbados,

which would be available, as well as a surplus in Jamaica?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES (WAGES AND PRICES)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the Seychelles a food subsidy is granted to any person whose income is under 25 rupees or 37s. a month, while the wage of a male plantation worker remains at the pre-war rate of 11 rupees, or 16s. 6d. a month; and since the price of copra in the Seychelles is more than double the pre-war price, whether he will fix minimum wages for labourers on coconut plantations at a level related both to the increased cost of living and the increases price of copra, in order to secure to labourers a living wage and to terminate a disguised subsidy to coconut planters.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: A subsidy was granted for rice only in 1942 to persons whose income is under 25 rupees a month. As rice is not now being imported, my right hon. and gallant Friend is inquiring whether this arrangement is still in operation. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. and gallant Friend has only as yet received a telegraphic summary of the report of the Commission referred to in his reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 19th of January. This does not include any proposal for further increases in fixed wages or for fixing minimum wages for labourers. It does, however, include recommendations for a stricter enforcement of price control regulations and other measures which the Commission considers the preferable way of meeting the increased cost of living. The Governor has taken steps to give effect to these proposals.

Mr. Riley: Is it not a fact that the price of copra is now about double what it was before the war; and are not the labourers entitled to an increase of wages, in consequence?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The rate of wages is not the same as it was before the war. The pre-war rate for a male labourer was 6½ rupees per month, and the present wage is 11 rupees per month.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (DETENTION ORDERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information respecting the restrictions imposed on Mr. Imoudu, President of the Railway Workers' Union in Nigeria and the Rev. Thomas Dosumu; and when these restrictions will be removed.

Mr. Emus-Evans: As regards Mr. Imoudu, I have nothing to add to my right hon. and gallant Friend's reply of 1st July last. With regard to the Rev. Thomas Dosumu, the latest information available is that the detention order made in respect of him, under Colonial Defence Regulations of 1942, is still in force, and that he is detained at Bo Camp, in Sierra Leone. Arrangements have been made for his wife and child to share his house there. If and when fresh decisions are practicable in his case, I will arrange for my hon. Friend to be informed.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there has been considerable criticism in the West African Press regarding the detention of these two men and others; and can he say what led to their detention?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot add to my reply. These men have been detained under Defence Regulations. The Governor was asked to review the second case, as recently as last month.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the Governor the precedent already set in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (ARCHBISHOP, ELECTION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the restrictions preventing the election of a new archbishop in Cyprus; and whether the Government is now prepared to permit the solution of this question in accordance with the wishes of the Cypriot people and without Government restrictions and interference?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: So far as the Government are concerned, the Cyprus Church is at liberty to proceed with the election of an archbishop at any time.

The initiative rests with the locum tenens of the See, and he has hitherto refused to take any action unless certain laws enacted in Cyprus in 1937 are repealed. These laws prohibit the election as archbishop of a person who has been deported or convicted of sedition or any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years, or who is not a native of Cyprus, and they provide that the Governor's approval must be given before an archbishop-elect can enter upon his office. As regards the last part of the Question, it is not considered that the present time is opportune to review these laws.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister have this matter reviewed more carefully, in view of the undoubted discontent in Cyprus over the question of the election of the archbishop?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my reply.

Captain Alan Graham: Is it not a fact that a training college for the Cypriot clergy is a far greater need for the spiritual welfare of the islanders than even the appointment of a new archbishop?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

London-Manchester Express, Fire (Locked Door)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has considered the letter sent him by the hon. Member for Leigh, alleging that the corridor doors were locked on the 10.15 a.m. London to Manchester express on Sunday, 6th February, 1944, causing great difficulty in getting away from the burning compartment and increasing the number of casualties; and will he give instructions that on all train journeys the doors of carriages and corridors shall not be locked.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As my hon. Friend may be aware, the railway companies have drawn up regulations which govern the locking of doors in the corridors of passenger coaches and in the gangways between coaches. These regulations take full


account of all safety considerations, and I am satisfied that they should be maintained. Unfortunately, on the 10.15 a.m. train to Manchester on 6th February, these regulations were not observed, and a door was locked which should have been left open. I have given instructions that the importance of adhering strictly to the regulations shall be impressed upon the railway staff.

Mr. Tinker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the locking of the doors is far too frequent. If such an accident as this happens, may I ask who is guilty of manslaughter if death results? I ask the hon. Gentleman to put this matter right. I hope that he will issue instructions that all doors shall be unlocked, and let us see how that works.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will send by hon. Friend a copy of the regulations, as they stand. They were carefully examined after a serious accident two years ago, and changes were made, which, I think, removed the dangers that then existed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the danger of fire, the practice of locking corridor doors is highly objectionable, and that frequently it is impossible to get through a corridor, with the result that passengers are jammed in, one part of the train when there is empty space in another part? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I realise the difficulty; but there are strong considerations on the other side.

Mr. Silverman: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than once fatalities have occurred which would not have occurred but for the locking of the corridor doors?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, that happened two years ago, as I have said. Since then, the regulations have been altered.

Mr. Silverman: Was the locking of the doors, on this occasion, in accordance with the regulations? If so, what was the reason which required the doors to be locked?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir; as I said, the regulations were not observed, and the doors were locked when they should have been left open.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mineral Waģons (Use for Potatoes)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether steps are taken to see that all empty wagons arriving in potato growing districts, including coal wagons, are loaded with such produce and not returned empty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that it is necessary as a general rule, to avoid loading mineral wagons with general merchandise, in order to speed up the turn-round of the wagons and to keep the coal pits supplied with the numbers which they require. Some exceptions to this rule, however, are made; for example, we allow 50 mineral wagons a day to be loaded in East Anglia with potatoes for London.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend really consider that 300 tons of potatoes from the whole of East Anglia is any contribution towards shifting the hundreds of thousands of tons which must be shifted in the very near future? Will he consider that point?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am told that 50 wagons a day have been used to build up stocks, and that they have appreciably helped the situation. On the general point, we cannot accept the principle suggested. We are already in great difficulty with the coal-pits, and if we left them any shorter of wagons, I am afraid that a great disaster would happen.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRIC BATTERY VEHICLES

Mr. Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the design and development of electrical vehicles.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend has asked the regional transport commissioners to give favourable consideration to all applications for licences to acquire electric battery vehicles, and arrangements have been made for the production of as many of these vehicles as are likely to be required for essential work. Facilities have also been given to designers to produce prototypes of new models which appear to be improvements on those which now exist.

Mr. Thorne: Do these vehicles cost more to build than petrol-driven ones?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They cost a little more to build, but they are cheaper to operate.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNLOADED MOTOR-LORRIES (JOURNEYS)

Captain Strickland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that, on 5th February, seven motor-lorries were instructed by his Department to proceed empty from O. N. Transport Company, Limited, and A. E. Taylor and Company, Limited, London to Warrington, about 1,500 unloaded vehicle-miles, and that one of these on reaching Warrington was loaded with empty second-hand packing cases to be delivered to a timber yard in Birmingham; and whether he will inform the House of the carriage cost involved in this latter case, including wages.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am making inquiries, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I can.

Captain Strickland: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few minutes ago the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the Government's policy was to conserve petrol and tyres? Does he consider that the travelling of 1,500 unloaded vehicle miles is in accordance with that policy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not had long notice of the Question, and I have not the information that I require to answer. This may be a case of bad operation; that is bound to happen sometimes when you are working 20,000 vehicles; it may be due to unforeseeable accidents, or there may be some other explanation; but I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend now.

Captain Strickland: Will the hon. Gentleman also say whether steps were taken to find out what loads were going North on that occasion?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is one of the things about which I am inquiring.

Captain Strickland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will inform the House of the circumstances which necessitated two six-ton lorries being sent by his Department from A. E. Taylor and

Company, Limited, in the week ended 5th February, from London to Widnes empty, Widnes to London loaded, London to Cambridge empty, thence to Bishop's Stortford empty, on to Epping empty, Epping to Didcot loaded, Didcot to Oxford empty, thence to Slough empty, Slough to Colnbrook empty, thence to London loaded, as this involved 622 loaded vehicle miles as against 822 empty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The two lorries to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were sent to Widnes to help in clearing an accumulation of essential traffic. No loads were available for the outward journey. I am making inquiries about the subsequent operation of these vehicles and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend when I have received the information for which I have asked.

Captain Strickland: Would the Minister also ascertain what steps were taken, and through what channels, to see what loads were available?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have done that and I am satisfied that there were no loads which could not have been better sent by other transport.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware of the frequency with which lorries make return journeys empty and, in particular, that many lorries leave London for towns in the Midlands and the North with no load when there are quantities of goods urgently waiting to be transported to these towns; and will he review the present working of the road-haulage scheme.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 26th January, the traffic to be carried between two given places may often be consistently heavier in one direction that it is in the others. This is true of traffic between London and the Midlands and the North, and, generally speaking, there is an excess of carrying capacity from London to these areas. I am not aware that the road haulage of any goods has been forbidden when no other means of transport was available. I would add, however, that, as more traffic is transferred to road transport to relieve the railways, the amount of empty running between these areas will be reduced.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the frequent complaints of the empty return of lorries, when there are goods waiting for transport to the destination of the lorries, is the Minister really satisfied that the scheme is working satisfactorily?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is not necessarily an advantage to send goods by road, if they can be better sent by rail or canal. It depends on capacity.

Mr. Levy: Is the Minister aware that the organisation of transport is getting into disrepute, and that there is unrest throughout the country in regard to transport, because of people seeing empty lorries running around all over the country?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that there appears to be great anxiety to show that it does not work well, but when I inquire, I do not find that the evidence of bad working is very good.

Oral Answers to Questions — OXFORD LAUNDRY ZONING SCHEME

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the terms of the resolution of the Oxford City Council condemning the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme; and whether he will now yield to the unanimous opinion in Oxford that the scheme should be withdrawn in view of the decision of the Government not to extend it to the rest of the country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir, I had not heard of the resolution adopted by the Oxford City Council until my hon. Friend put down his Question. As I explained in a written answer to my hon. Friend on 1st February, the principles of the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme have been applied to various other parts of the country, but, since there are some thousands of schemes for the rationalisation of retail deliveries, it is neither possible nor desirable to make them uniform. They vary from commodity to commodity and from place to place, according to the local conditions. I regret, therefore, that I cannot do as my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. Hoģģ: Is the Minister aware that the laundry zoning scheme, in the form in which it has been introduced in Oxford,

is not applied to any other city in the country? Is it not a fact that it was originally justified only as an experiment, which had, admittedly, not proved capable of extension, and will he consider the very serious constitutional implications of depriving citizens of one city, of rights enjoyed by others?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In fact, the principles of this scheme have been applied in various parts of South and West Scotland and in various counties of England. The hon. Member's contention really is that, because a scheme is not uniform all over the country, it should be withdrawn. If I did that, I should undermine many schemes which cause, perhaps, greater inconvenience than the Oxford Laundry Zoning Scheme, but through which great economies have been made in the national interest.

Mr. Bowles: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Hoģģ: In view of the fact that the Minister's reply has made my constituency into a British protectorate, is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) entitled to take the bread out of my mouth?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that is the result of a very lengthy question and its equally lengthy reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD HAULAGE (REPLACEMENT VEHICLES)

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will indicate the process whereby road-hauliers may seek replacement vehicles, and by what authority the same can be authorised, for work of essential service where present vehicles can no longer be sufficiently utilised by the operator.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Any road haulier may apply to my Department through a Regional Transport Commissioner for a licence to acquire a new vehicle, in replacement of one which is worn out. In view of the prospective demands on transport in certain areas, the Commissioners in those areas have been advised to give favourable consideration to applications for licences to acquire additional vehicles of a suitable type, even if those vehicles are not required as replacements.

Major Lyons: In view of the apprehension that exists in this industry, will the Minister see that some proper notice of the position which he has just explained is given to those concerned; and will he see that cases of apparent injustice are dealt with?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider cases of injustice, and I hope this Question and answer will lead to the result the hon. and learned Member desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Church Newspaper (Article)

Mr. Tree: asked the Minister of Information whether a recent article in the Church of England newspaper calling for a fourth term for President Roosevelt and criticising the Governor of New York State was submitted to censorship.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir. An article of this kind is not subject to censorship. The newspaper that printed it is one of five Church of England newspapers and it has never claimed to be the official voice of the Church.

Mr. Tree: While reserving full rights to the Press to make what comments they will on political matters here and abroad, is the Minister aware that a certain amount of misapprehension has been caused in the United States by this particular article; and may I ask him if he is doing everything, through his information services there, to make clear in the United States that this particular newspaper is not the official organ of the Church of England?

Mr. Bracken: This is not exactly a function of the Government. The hon. Member's point was very well put by American newspapers, which have observed that ecclesiastical newspapers ought not to dabble in politics.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is it not peculiarly unfortunate, in view of this Question and answer, that, by a misprint on the Order Paper, this word "newspaper" appears with a small "n," which does give the impression that this is a Church of England newspaper in the sense of being managed by the Church of England?

Mr. Bracken: I am in the fortunate position that I do not have to set up the

Order Paper, but let me point out to my hon. Friend, who apparently did not hear my answer, that I have said that this newspaper has no official connection with the Church of England.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the people of this country have no intention of abandoning their right to express opinions about anything? Will he also make it clear that, on the other hand, we have no objection to the United States Press criticising; that whether we have any objection or not, they would take any opportunity of criticising the people of this country; that if they want to make suggestions, either about the Prime Minister or any other right hon. Gentleman opposite, they will do so, and that we have no objection to it?

Pamphlet, "What Britain Has Done"

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information what steps have been taken to circulate the booklet, "What Britain Has Done," amongst the Allied troops serving in this country

Mr. Bracken: This pamphlet was prepared for use overseas and shortage of paper has prevented any wide distribution in this country. The responsibility for supplying booklets to Allied forces serving in this country belongs to the respective Allied Governments, to whom a limited number of copies have been made available.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister bear in mind that this pamphlet has proved the best for stimulating public opinion that has yet been published; and will he do his best to overcome this shortage and get the booklet as widely distributed as possible?

Mr. Bracken: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, because compliments to the Ministry of Information are valuable, when rated according to scarcity, and I will do my best to fulfil his wish.

Sir W. Davison: Can a copy be placed in the Library?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Information how many copies of the booklet, "What Britain Has Done," have been sent to the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.; and what arrangements have been made for their distribution.

Mr. Bracken: Successive editions of this reference booklet have been supplied to the Ministry's offices in both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. Arrangements for their distribution are in the hands of the local representatives.

Polish Newspaper (Withdrawal of Facilities)

Major Petherick: asked the Minister of Information why the Polish newspaper "Wiadomosci Polskie" has been suppressed.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Information the reasons which led him to suppress the Polish weekly, "Wiadomosci Polskie"; whether he has indicated to the newspaper the passages on which his decision is based; whether the newspaper has ever printed matter to which the censor has taken objection; and whether the ban is subject to review.

Mr. Bracken: I must remind my hon. Friends of the promise I gave the House on 23rd June, 1943, that any journals published by foreigners in Britain which attempted to create discord among the United Nations would be deprived of official facilities for publication. This Polish journal gave up a great deal of space to violent attacks on the Soviet Government. It also abused the Polish Government. In spite of more than one warning to desist from abusing the hospitality of Great Britain, this journal continued its efforts to stir up discord between our Allies. And extracts from its columns were widely used by German propagandists. I am not willing to reconsider the decision to end the harmful activities of this paper.

Major Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to have copies of this newspaper put in the Library, together with translations of the offending passages, on which he took action?

Mr. Bracken: I shall be very glad to do so.

Sir A. Southby: Without wishing to appear to be taking any side in the Polish dispute, can my right hon. Friend say how free Polish opinion can be expressed, if one side of the story is suppressed by reason of a paper not being allowed to be published?

Mr. Bracken: The Poles have a considerable number of papers in this country and I do not believe that British sailors

should have to cart paper across the ocean in order to provide opportunities for foreigners in this country to help German propagandists and to sow discord.

Mr. McGovern: Have any representations been made from Russia to get this paper suppressed, and is it a crime now to criticise the rulers of Russia?

Mr. Bracken: We have had no suggestion from the Soviet Government about any communitations we have had with the Polish Press. It is not a crime to criticise any Government—Russian or otherwise—but I must say that we are approaching some of the most terrible days of this war, and surely, wisdom lies in people attempting to create unity among our Allies rather than in attempting to sow discord.

Meetinģs (Members of Parliament)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Information what instructions are issued to his local officers on the subject of the invitations to be addressed to Members of Parliament to take part in functions by his Ministry in their constituencies.

Mr. Bracken: Regional Information Officers are instructed to invite to any public meeting organised by the Ministry the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the meeting is held. In the case of exhibitions, film-shows and similar functions, an invitation is normally sent to the Member of Parliament only if the function is an important one or if there is reason to believe he would be interested.

Mr. Liddall: Is the Minister aware that, in some cases, the Member of Parliament for the constituency and also the Mayor of the borough were not invited to these important functions?

Mr. Bracken: I wish that my hon. Friend would give me some details about the failure of the Ministry's officers to invite the Member of Parliament and the Mayor of the borough. The popularity of these functions is highly embarrassing to the Ministry of Information, and I should think will be in the end, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Armed Forces (Air Letters)

Lady Apsley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider reducing the cost of 6d. for an air mail letter and 3d.


for an airgraph to 3d. and 2d., respectively, in view of the burden imposed on the wives and mothers of Service men whose incomes have been reduced as a result of the breadwinner leaving home and who find the cost of airborne communications a hardship.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend, the Assistant Postmaster-General, gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Chester (Major Nield) on this subject on 9th February.

Major Woolley: In view of the enormous satisfaction which the mail gives to our troops overseas, will my right hon. and gallant Friend do everything he can to encourage mail being sent over there?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir; but this is a question about altering the charges.

Australia (British Mails)

Mr. Keelinģ: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that mail which left this country four months ago is only now being delivered in Australia; and whether he is satisfied that every opportunity of despatching mail by British or Allied merchant and warships is utilised.

Captain Crookshank: All the surface mails for Australia despatched last October arrived in December. The mails are despatched by every suitable opportunity.

Mr. Keelinģ: Is that an answer to the Question about the mails now being delivered? Can I have an answer to that question?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir. If all the mails despatched four months ago were delivered in December, they are not now being delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (COUNTY COURT JUDGES)

Mr. Turton: asked the Attorney-General whether county court judges are supplied with copies of all regulations as they are published or, alternatively, with the Butterworth's Emergency Service.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): No, Sir. County court judges are supplied with copies of those Regulations and Orders which clearly affect them, but it is not thought that the supply of all Statutory Rules and Orders as they appear would assist them.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the work of the county court judges is not being hampered by the delay in sending copies of fresh Regulations?

The Attorney-General: Cases of difficulty may arise and I shall be glad to discuss them with my hon. Friend, but it is not thought that the distribution of this vast mass of material will really be of assistance or even helpful.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are there not arrangements to instruct county court judges what Statutory Rules and Orders mean, as most of them are rather un-intelligible?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Hospitals (Equipment)

Major Markham: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals have air conditioning in any wards; how many have electrically heated ambulances; and how many have incubators for premature infants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbruģh): I regret that I have not the information asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major Markham: In view of the importance of these matters in the reduction of child mortality, will the Minister get this information and circulate it?

Miss Horsbruģh: My right hon. and learned Friend feels that in present circumstances he would not be justified in asking for a complete survey of the hospitals.

Infant Mortality

Major Markham: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the senior medical officer of his Ministry gave evidence before the Barlow Commission in November, 1938, to the effect that an infant mortality rate of 29 was so far unattainable in this country; that since that date infant mortality rates as low


as this have been achieved in Iceland, New Zealand, New York, Chicago and several other places; and whether it is still the official view of his Ministry that a rate of 29 is unattainable in this country.

Miss Horsbruģh: No, Sir. A reference was made in the proceedings before the Barlow Commission to the fact that lower rates had been secured in some other countries than had yet been attained here, but the officer referred to said that it might reasonably be anticipated that these lower rates might in time be reached here, a view from which my right hon. Friend does not see any reason to dissent.

Major Markham: Is not the Ministry now of the opinion that these rates can be reached very quickly indeed if they follow the example of Chicago and New York in dealing with the infantile mortality problem?

Miss Horsbruģh: That is quite a different question from that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept the figure of 29; and has that figure been reached in Iceland, New Zealand and other places?

Miss Horsbruģh: I have not the figure of 29 for that particular date. Certainly in Holland, at the date of the Commission, the figure of 31 was reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CASUALTIES (ROYAL MESSAGE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the issue of an appropriate certificate of appreciation to the nearest relative of each member of the Forces killed when on duty but not necessarily by enemy action.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A Royal Message is sent in all such cases. The question of the issue of a more permanent document will be considered on the conclusion of hostilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CASUALTIES (ITALY)

Major Buchan-Hepburn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the number of casualties sustained by British Forces in Italy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Between 3rd September of last year, the day on which British troops first landed on the mainland of Italy, and 12th February, the following casualties have been sustained by the British Armies in Italy, including Dominion and Indian troops:


Killed
…
7,635


Wounded
…
23,283


Missing
…
5,708


Total
…
36,626


This does not include Naval or Air Force casualties.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that he promised that the figures of casualties would not be published until the beginning of April in reply to a question that I put to him?

The Prime Minister: I was referring then to the request which the hon. Gentleman made, namely, for the publication of all the Allied casualties. That requires a larger measure of examination before it can be given, but this particular statement I am able to make at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Eģģs

Sir Robert Younģ: asked the Minister of Food whether there is any time limit for the supply of eggs to priority customers; whether he is aware that eggs, already far from fresh, are held back from ordinary customers on the grounds that all customers on the priority list have not applied for their quota; and whether he will make it a rule that eggs will be supplied on demand, while assuring to everyone, within the allocation period, his or her allotted number.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Separate allocations of eggs are made to retailers in respect of their priority and non-priority requirements. A non-priority customer should therefore be able to obtain his egg during an allocation period irrespective of whether the requirements of priority customers have or have not been fully met. The answer to the first two parts of the Question is, No, Sir.

Sir R. Younģ: Is the Minister aware that it is customary for eggs to be lined up in the shops and that priority customers are supplied and other people cannot get them?

Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend knows of a particular case of that sort I shall be very glad to go into it.

Sir Robert Younģ: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the second allocation of eggs being now in operation a large number of people have not yet had their quota of eggs under the first allocation, the reason given for this by the shopkeepers being that they have not yet had their full supply of eggs under the first allocation; and can he give an explanation why that should be.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir; allocation periods normally overlap but in the end every area receives exactly the same number of allocations.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Food how many eggs per week the expectant mother is entitled to and for how many weeks before confinement; and on what scale she is entitled to eggs after the birth of the baby and for how many weeks.

Colonel Llewellin: Two shell eggs and three packets of dried eggs during each allocation period, after pregnancy is certified and until the child is six months old.

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible to increase the allowance?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir, I am afraid not at the moment.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Food up to what age children are entitled to a special distribution of eggs.

Colonel Llewellin: From six months to 18 months shell eggs at the rate of three a week and thereafter one shell egg at each allocation. In addition, up to the age of five years, two packages of dried eggs at each allocation of such eggs.

Milk Distribution

Major York: asked the Minister of Food the total estimated cost of distribution of milk for the periods 1st October, 1941, to 30th September, 1942, 1st October, 1942, to 30th September, 1943,

and the approximate cost of distribution for the same or similar period 1938–39.

Colonel Llewellin: Accurate figures are only available for the year ending 30th September, 1943, but giving the best estimates of the other two years the figures are 1941–42 and 1942–43, 1s. 0½d. a gallon and 1938–39, 11½d.

Unmillable Wheat

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Food the amount of unmillable wheat produced annually in this country and say for what purpose it is utilised; and whether it will be arranged for this grain to be allotted to poultry farmers.

Colonel Llewellin: The amount of unmillable wheat produced annually in this country depends so much upon weather and other conditions that it is impossible to give an average figure. Of such unmillable wheat as there is; some is retained by the growers to feed their own poultry and other stock, and the rest is distributed through the rationing scheme, mainly to keepers of poultry.

Shop Hours (Workers)

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to remedy the disability suffered by members of the public who have to be at work between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. by reason of the fact that supplies of oranges, fish, cakes, &c., are only available between the hours mentioned and retailers are forbidden to reserve any supplies to which the applicant would be entitled when he visits their shop between 9 and 9.30 a.m. before going to work.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the shopping difficulties of those who have to work most of the day and have no one to do their shopping for them, but there are many shops open before 10 a.m. selling the foodstuffs to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir W. Davison: But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question, which points out that retailers are forbidden to reserve supplies for the people who come at 9.30 a.m. as they have to get to work at 10 a.m. The shop is open but the shopkeeper is not allowed to reserve oranges, or whatever it may be, for which his customer asks?

Colonel Llewellin: In the case which my hon. Friend brought to my notice, unfortunately the oranges were not available at the particular shop—which is a very good one from our point of view—until 10 o'clock that morning. There are difficulties in putting aside such goods as oranges under the counter. If people have been standing in a queue and goods are produced for a customer who has called earlier then calls back again, great difficulty arises.

Sir W. Davison: There is no question of putting things aside. A regular customer who has to go to work at 10 o'clock calls in at 9.30, presumably before the queue has arrived, and the goods could be put aside for him were it not for the prohibition of the Ministry.

Colonel Llewellin: We have asked them not to do that because other people think they have been kept for a privileged customer. But they are available; if not on that day, on the next one or two days oranges will be available at that shop.

Mr. E. Walkden: Could I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in defence of shop assistants and employees generally, whether the remedy for a matter like this does not lie with the local authorities and in a "get together" spirit being developed among all the parties represented in industry? It is very necessary to prevent people always blaming the shopkeeper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Tank Board Membership

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether there have been any changes recently in the membership of the Tank Board; and whether he will state the names of the persons on that Board at the present time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Sandys): Yes, Sir. The Chairman of the Ministry of Supply tank mission to America and the Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Production have ceased to be members of the Tank Board, the former on the completion of the work of the mission and the latter as a result of the amalgamation of his post with that of the Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicle Development. I will circulate

in Hansard a statement showing the present composition of the Tank Board.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the name of the present Chairman of the Board?

Mr. Sandys: Commander Micklem, who has been Chairman for a long time.

Following is the statement:

The Tank Board is composed of the holders of the undermentioned appointments in the Ministry of Supply and the War Office. The present holders of these posts are shown in brackets.

Chairman of the Board.

Chairman of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Division, Ministry of Supply.
(Commander E. R. Micklem, C.B.E., R.N.).

War Office Members.

Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff.(Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald Weeks, K.C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., M.G., T.D.).
Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff (W).
(Major-General J. F. Evetts, C.B., C.B.E., M.C.).
Director, Royal Armoured Corps.
(Major-General R. Briggs, C.B., D.S.O.).
Director of Mechanical Engineering.
(Major-General E. B. Rowcrott, C.B., C.B.E., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.E.E.).

Ministry of Supply Members.

Controller-General of Munitions Production.
(Sir Graham Cunningham).
Director-General of Armoured Fighting Vehicles.
(Mr. C. D. Gibb, C.B.E.).
U.S.A. Liaison.
(Colonel G. A. Green).

Copper Imports

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Supply if he can give an assurance that Empire countries which produce copper will not suffer any disadvantage as a result of the decision to reduce the imports of copper into the United Kingdom.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): My hon. Friend may be assured that His Majesty's Government recognise their special responsibilities towards the copper producing areas of the Empire and the interests of those areas are being fully taken into account in considering any adjustment in our copper import programmes.

Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend answer my Question? Will he give me an assurance they will suffer no disadvantage?

Mr. Peat: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Penicillin

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent he is co-operating with the appropriate authorities in Canada and in the U.S.A., respectively, in the large-scale manufacture of penicillin.

Mr. Peat: There is close and constant co-operation between all parties concerned, both by the exchange of information and reports and by visits of scientific and technical experts. The arrangements for the production of penicillin in Canada and the United States and this country are co-ordinated by the Combined Production and Resources Board.

Major Lyons: In view of the uneasy feeling the public have, first, that a monopoly has been granted for the manufacture of this drug and, secondly, that we are not pressing ahead in any degree in the manufacture of it, will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what steps are taken to co-operate in the large scale manufacture now taking place in Canada and the United States?

Mr. Peat: To answer my hon. and gallant Friend would take some time in detail but I can assure him that, as far as I know, no step is being omitted which would help us to get production going in this country.

Major Lyons: But may I ask what step is being taken and not what is not being omitted? There is a feeling that there is a monopoly in the manufacture of this drug.

Mr. Peat: We are in the closest co-operation with Government bodies in the United States and in Canada and with all the scientific bodies in those two countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING SCHEMES (DIRECT LABOUR)

Mr. Huģh Lawson: asked the Minister of Health if the decision of his Department that housing sites over and under five acres are to be undertaken by large and small contractors, respectively,

means that it is the Government's intention to prevent local authorities undertaking their housing schemes by direct labour; and will he encourage all local authorities to set up efficient public works departments so that public money is not diverted into the pockets of private individuals in post-war reconstruction schemes.

Miss Horsbruģh: The reply to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." As regards the second part, the establishment and maintenance of a public works department by a local authority is a matter for the authority to decide in the first place.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it not a fact that direct labour is both dilatory and Expensive and not highly noted for its results?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Prices

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much money the extra 4d. increase on the price of coal has realised; how the money is being used; on how many thousands of tons has the extra 4d. been charged; and is there any distinction made between house used coal and the coal used for production purposes.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): It is not in every case that there is an addition of 4d. because in calculating the increase in hundredweight prices for small deliveries account is taken of any gain or loss to merchants on hundredweight prices arising out of previous alterations in price. That has resulted in some increases in the hundredweight price being 1d. only, or 1s. 8d. per ton instead of 3s. 4d. Nevertheless the increase per hundredweight has more frequently been 2d. or 3s. 4d. per ton because 3s. divided by 20 does not produce an answer which can be accurately reflected by our monetary system. I ought to add that in authorising an average increase of 3s. per ton there was some house coals for which the increase in pit head price was 3s. 4d. and in such cases the permitted increase for small sales was still 3s. 4d. per ton or 2d. per hundredweight. The 4d. if collected, is retained by merchants, but, as I have indicated


will be taken into account on the occasion of any future rise; industrial coal is sold in ordinary course by the ton and no addition would be permitted to the authorised increase for the grade of coal concerned. For reasons explained it is not possible to give figures showing the precise effect of price increases in small sales as compared with an average of 3s. per ton.

Mr. Thorne: The Parliamentary Secretary has not given the total amount realised.

Mr. Smith: As I explained, it is almost impossible at this moment to give the exact amount.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: When the methods of calculations for the mines are being considered, may we also have the methods of calculation in the Ministry of Fuel and Power?

Mr. Smith: We shall have enough of the calculations in a day or two.

Mr. Loģan: Is it the intention of the Minister to introduce the decimal system in regard to the production of coal?

Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see that the public feel they are being bled? If coal is raised by only 3s. a ton and is retailed at an extra 4d. per cwt. to poor people, they are bound to get their backs up.

Sea Transport

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been drawn to the fact that consignments of coal from the North-East for destinations on the South Coast and in London have recently been transported by rail when sea transport was available; and if, in view of the present pressure on the railway systems, he will ensure that all coal possible is carried by sea.

Mr. T. Smith: It is definitely the policy of my Ministry to make the fullest possible use of sea transport, but rail transport from the North-East to the destinations referred to by my honourable and gallant Friend cannot be entirely avoided. There are limits to the amount of shipping available for the South Coast and to the volume of traffic that can be dealt with through the

London Docks. There would also be handling difficulties at some of the works, which at present receive their coal by rail direct, if it were transferred to sea. I have, however, emphasised my instructions that the railborne traffic must be kept to the minimum consistent with the maintenance of essential supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (DENOMINATIONAL CLASSIFICATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners in this country are recorded, respectively, as members of the Church of England, the Free Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Jewish faith; and whether he will arrange for the practice of automatically classifying prisoners who are agnostic or indifferent as Church of England to cease and unless a positive indication of religious conviction is made prisoners to be recorded as agnostic or as indicating no religious conviction.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No statistics are collected of the religious denominations to which prisoners may state that they belong, but even if available I consider it would be quite wrong to seek to draw any inference from them with regard to any particular denomination. The suggestion in the latter part of the Question is, I think, unfounded. I am not aware that any prisoner is classified as a member of a particular denomination against his wish.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that figures are available indicating the respective faiths and beliefs of prisoners? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the careless way of describing the majority of prisoners as "members of the Church of England," gives rise to the most unfortunate feeling that members of that Church are more prone to crime than agnostics or persons with other religious beliefs?

Mr. Peake: No statistics of any kind have been collected centrally since 1930, but if the hon. Member would like some information on that point I will try to furnish it privately. With regard to the hon. Member's second point, the possession of religious convictions is not an essential qualification for admission to


any of His Majesty's prisons. If a person declares that he has no religion that fact will be recorded.

Mr. Sorensen: But if people are indifferent, is it not true that, automatically, they are put down as "C. of E.," which is misleading?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir, but I admit that it seems to be the general idea that there is something rather respectable or patriotic about declaring that one belongs to the Church of England.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically every Member of Parliament has received a pamphlet during the past few days inch-eating that certain crimes have been committed by members of a particular faith and stating that these facts are derived from the Home Office or certain Departmental figures? The evidence is very disturbing.

Mr. Peake: I am not aware of the facts which have been stated. I have seen the pamphlet and I regard it as very mischievous.

Mr. Loģan: Ought there not to be an inquiry into the characters of those who have issued the pamphlet?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Amendment to—

Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Bill [Lords],

without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
That the Proceedings on the Committee stage of the Education Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business.

I wonder if I might recall to the House that this will be our fourth day in Committee on the Education Bill? I think that in the three days we have already made quite good progress, but I hope that on this, the fourth, day we may be able to go just a little faster.

Mr. Thorne: Is it still the intention that the Prime Minister should make his statement on the war situation during our next series of Sittings?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, there is no change. There will be a two-day Debate on the war situation.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the President of the Board of Education that if he is a little more susceptible to the influence of Members who put forward Amendments, and accepts them more readily, we shall get through the Education Bill more quickly?

Mr. Eden: I have always found that my right hon. Friend most skilfully combines the attributes of being stalwart and susceptible at the same time.

Sir Herbert Williams: As the Education Bill is largely founded on agreements concluded with people outside, is it not a fact that this House is being deprived of its chances of amending the Bill because the Minister is unwilling to upset those agreements?

Mr. Eden: I do not think my hon. Friend would wish to press that charge, on reflection. He has only to look at the pages of Amendments to realise that it has no foundation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th February.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of local education authorities to secure provision of primary and secondary schools.)

Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(b) to the expediency of securing that, so far as is compatible with the need for providing efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expense to the authority, provision is made for enabling pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."—[Mr. Butler.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a moment, to say that the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend will be appreciated by tens of thousands of parents. I hope however he will give some indication to them of how they can exercise the rights which the Amendment purports to confer upon them, and what will be the machinery by which they can exercise their influence on the teaching that is to be accorded to their children.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I want to ask the Minister how far this Amendment really carries us. I can understand its purpose, from the point of view of the interests represented by the hon. Members whose proposed Amendment has been substantially accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to put another aspect of the case. I am concerned with the wishes of parents particularly in the single-school areas. Under the framework of the Bill, denominational churches in such areas will have the right, if they can find half the capital cost, of becoming aided schools. Speaking for my own part of the country, I know that in many single-school areas where there are Anglican schools and the population is not predominantly but overwhelmingly Nonconformist, it will be the wish of parents that the new school shall be a controlled

school. Does this Amendment mean that the wishes of the parents will be taken into account, notwithstanding the specific provisions in a later part of the Bill, in deciding whether, in a single-school area, that school will be a controlled school or a denominational school?

Captain Cobb: Does it mean that in the event of a dispute between a parent and the local authority as to the type of secondary education a child should receive, the parent's point of view will prevail and not that of the local authority? Some of us are rather afraid that the abolition of fees in secondary schools will mean that the local education authority will determine whether a child shall go to a modern, technical or grammar school and that the parent's wishes will receive little consideration. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the parent's wishes will be taken into account and not those of the local authority.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): It is very satisfactory to feel that this Amendment appeals so much to the Committee. I can give the general assurance which has been asked for, provided that the Committee will not press me to assure them that everything will be absolutely right as a result of this Amendment. The Amendment amounts to this: It imposes a general duty upon the authorities which will pervade the whole Bill. That is why it is in Clause 8. To that extent, it is an improvement, from the point of view of parental influence, on the Clause which was included in the 1921 Bill. To that extent it is an advance. It is, of course, applicable just as much to the children of one denomination as to those of another, and if certain denominations think their children will get a better chance of being educated according to the wishes of their parents, that must equally apply to a block of children of another denomination. The object is to assist parents to obtain the kind of education they want for their children. Therefore, to some extent, the point will be very much assisted by the insertion of this Amendment, though one cannot give an absolute assurance about particular cases which may operate in particular areas.
The other point, as to whether parents who desire a particular type of secondary


education could influence the authority, is covered on the same footing as the point about children of different denominations. It may be that a child is suitable, or not suitable, for a particular form of secondary education, there may be a bloc of parents who desire a form of technical education, or it may be that there are parents who desire boarding education. All these demands will be very easily met by the insertion of this general duty and, provided the Committee will not force me into the position of saying that every particular case will be settled by the general duty, I can give the assurance desired and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Leach: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "five" and to insert "seven".

Mr. Butler: On a point of Order. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if we take this Amendment together with the next two in a general discussion—in line 21, to leave out from "or", to "nursery" in line 23, and in line 24, at the end, to insert:
with authority to extend this provision beyond the age of five where conditions are suitable"—
reserving the right to put the Amendments individually? We have had one general discussion on this aspect of the Bill; now we may well have another and it would be convenient to take them altogether.

The Chairman: If the Committee agree, I think that will be convenient.

Mr. Leach: I quite agree. My Amendment has one single, narrow, but very important purpose, to preserve the right of local education authorities, now exercising it, to retain their nursery school children up to the age of seven. We do not want to impose the age of seven on anyone. We want the freedom of local education authorities who prefer the age of five still to be maintained. According to my reading of Clauses 8 and 9, the age of five would be the limit recognised by the Bill at which children could be retained in nursery schools. That is the difficulty in which I find myself. I am convinced that, before many years are over, the Minister will discover that these

Clauses relating to nursery schools will be the brightest jewel in his crown. The nursery school lays down the foundation of an invaluable training in social life, and for youngsters of a tender age, that is of supreme importance We want to make sure that that kind of instruction shall not be suspended at the age of seven.
Anyone visiting a nursery school is bound to come to the conclusion that he has seen the happiest school children the nation possesses. The School Nursery Association is anxious to secure this Amendment. The late Margaret MacMillan, the greatest educationist this country ever produced, strongly favoured nursery school education up to the age of seven. She went so far as to say that, in the main, the development of children leaving the nursery school at seven was, in very many respects, three years higher than those who had not that advantage. If the age of seven becomes the universal age for nursery schools it may well be that infant schools will ultimately disappear for ever. I should not regard that myself as a national disaster, but it is not my purpose in the Amendment to interfere with the present rights of infant schools or their plans in any way. I hope soon to see nursery schools—I come from a city which has probably the highest proportion of nursery schools in the country—made into a basis upon which the whole educational front is based. In that respect my Amendment would be of help.

Mr. Burden: I support the Amendment. It would be ungenerous not to acknowledge that the proposal in the Bill is a step forward. I take it that nursery schools will cease to be a special service and will form an essential part of our educational system, but the Clause, as it now stands, limits the provision of nursery schools for children up to the age of five. Under the Fisher Act, local authorities were empowered to make arrangements for
supplying or assisting the supply of nursery schools for children over two and under five years of age or such later age as may be approved by the Board of Education.
I take it that under the Clause as it now stands it would not be possible to approve nursery schools for children at a later age than five. Surely, as the Parliamentary


Secretary has himself argued, we need flexibility in our educational system. We need the opportunity for experiment. I think it must be admitted, too, that, broadly speaking, almost every advance in educational technique has come from gifted amateurs outside the teaching profession. For that reason I would urge the acceptance of this Amendment. With due respect I submit that there is no educational reason for the limitation to five years, and that the only reason that can be advanced is the administrative one that compulsory attendance at school starts at five years.
Another point in support of the Amendment is that since 1838, when local government as we know it to-day began to take shape, local authorities have been allowed considerable latitude in the administration of national measures in the light of local circumstances. While it is true that many local authorities might have exercised their powers with greater efficiency, there does not appear to be any reason why we should frustrate and stultify, as this Clause does, the opportunities which local authorities now have for the provision of nursery schools for children up to seven years of age. I agree that the existing provision of nursery schools is far too meagre. Notwithstanding the eloquent sermon which Sir George Newman used to preach to us every year when he was the Chief Medical Officer of the Board, I understand that in 1939 there were only. 58 local authorities' nursery schools in England and Wales, providing for some 6,200 children. Apart from those nursery classes in infants' schools, the great majority of the under fives came, and to-day come, under no educational influence, and, as we know to our shame, thousands of infants are still taught in old, barrack-like buildings with no modern equipment, and classes of 50 and over are not uncommon. I urge that the conditions in a good nursery school are the best suited for children up to seven years of age.
In 1939, when the war broke out, the Board of Education had under consideration a very long list of proposals from local authorities for the provision of nursery schools. Up to then I think the attitude of the Board to the demands of local authorities far the provision of nursery schools might be summed up in the words of Clough:

Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive, Officiously to keep alive.
I hope we shall make a fresh start. From 1921 to 1931 economy held up practically all educational advance. From 1931 to 1939 the weakness—

The Chairman: We cannot go into the whole history of this matter.

Mr. Burden: I only wish to make the point that from now on I hope we are to have a clean, fresh start, and that local authorities will be empowered, as they would be under this Amendment, to make wide provision for nursery schools for children up to the age of seven, in order that our children may have the opportunity which, up to now, has been denied to them.

Miss Lloyd George: I am sure that a great many of use are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion that the three Amendments should be taken together, to make it possible for us to have a slightly wider Debate on a question which, to many people, is disquieting. Under the Bill it now becomes the duty of a local authority to provide nursery schools for children up to five years of age. I think that is admirable and is welcomed by all, but what is to be the next step after that? Here there seems to be a discrepancy between the policy of the White Paper and of the Bill. The White Paper says that the first stage in the process of compulsory schooling is the infant stage, which lasts from five to seven. That is the old system, as it prevails to-day. When we come to the Bill we find the first stage is, in fact, from five to 11. There is no mention of the word "infant" in the Bill. "Junior pupil" is the term that applies to all children from two to 11 plus. There is a whole world of difference between the policy of the White Paper and the Bill. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that there is a whole world of difference between the conception as it exists to-day and the conception in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that it does not really matter whether "infant" is in the Bill or not, that it was not in previous Acts and so why have it in this one? I never thought to hear anyone so progressively-minded as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary giving that as a good and valid reason why the word should not be in the


Bill. After all, the reason why we welcome this Bill is that it is an advance, and that there are many things in it which have not been in previous Acts. Many of us would like to have the whole position of infants, that is, children from five to seven, made absolutely clear. The Parliamentary Secretary also said that those who were anxious to raise the age to seven and not leave it at five wanted to put the whole system into a straightjacket. That is precisely what the Government want to do, only they want to make the age five. They want to put the system into a strait-jacket in the wrong place.
Whether five is the right age to have this break in the life of a child is a very important question. The Parliamentary Secretary said there is no consensus of opinion as to whether seven is the right age. There certainly is no opinion that I have heard of that five is the right age. All who have made extensive and prolonged study of this matter have declared emphatically that seven is a more appropriate age than five for children to enter on what is, after all, a new life. They will be going away from the nursery atmosphere to the atmosphere of the school curriculum. I know perfectly well that there are immense difficulties which limit almost every Clause of the Bill, difficulties of teachers, of staff, of buildings, and so on, but in this matter I would ask whether it is not possible to extend and to adapt existing infant schools and to adapt and extend war-time nurseries, a great many of which need to be more suitable for accommodating children up to the age of seven. After all, in this Bill we are laying down the line along which our education system is to proceed, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman that when he is doing that he will not establish the break in the school life of children at five years of age.

Mr. Cove: I should like to support the general argument put by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I happen to be in touch with teachers up and down the country, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one of the great fears about this Bill is that it will crush out the infant school. Whether that fear is justified or not, it certainly exists. There is a general fear, which has been conveyed to me from many quarters, that these State infant

schools are going to be crushed. I should like to say in passing that I entirely disagree with the observation of the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) that every advance in the education field has been made by gifted amateurs. I absolutely and completely disagree with that, and I cannot understand a Socialist making that remark, because anyone who knows anything of our education system will know that if there has been any advance, if there have been experiments carried out, if there have been sacrifices made by teachers, it has been in connection with infant schools. I should like to put it on record that I know of many instances in which headmistresses in infant schools have spent their own money in providing the materials necessary to carry on the work in the schools. Further, and this is my main point, it would be a real tragedy in our education system if we conveyed to those teachers that they were going to be snuffed out or smothered by the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Lady that we should like to see the children kept outside a rigid curriculum and that experiments in the educational process should have scope.
I am not rigidly bound to any particular limit, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the emphasis in the Bill is against the provision of nursery classes and my Amendment is designed to get over that. That provision in the Bill is one of the things which have caused the suspicion which exists. The opinion has been conveyed to me not by any official organisation but by a mass of correspondence from individual teachers, and I feel keenly that unless the right hon. Gentleman convinces us that he is going to meet us Parliament ought to register an opinion on the matter, because it is an exceptionally important point in the education sphere. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this. There has certainly emanated from his Department—I do not want to go further—through various officials, the view that the Department implies that the day of the infant school has gone. Right up and down the country I find that idea exists. Both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary know of the splendid work which has been done in towns like Nottingham. As I have said, I do not want compulsion for the small children, but I do want to maintain the


interest of our education system in nurturing and developing these young children, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us on the issues we have raised.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I hope this discussion will not get down to the old argument as to whether five or seven is the right age to stop attendance at nursery schools. That is a matter on which there is bound to be an honest difference of opinion, because the thing which must determine whether a child should leave at the age of five or seven is its mental development. You cannot lay down hard and fast rules. The Minister should not tie himself to a particular age—the age of five—because that would be an unfortunate thing. We have very good experiments going on in nursery schools with children up to the age of seven, so I hope the Minister will accept some wording of the Bill which will make it possible for some children, at any rate, to remain in nursery schools until they reach the age of seven. That does not mean that we should force all children to attend nursery schools until that age, but the matter should be made as elastic as possible, and I hope, therefore, that the President will accept some wording along the lines of this Amendment.

Dr. Haden Guest: I wish to say very shortly that I hope the President will agree to accept some words such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) making it possible to extend this provision beyond the age of five, and I rise not only to give my general support, but I think I am justified in saying that there is a considerable body of opinion among school medical officers that the age should be raised beyond five and probably to seven. Education should consist chiefly of play activities and physical education, and not in cramming up to the age of about seven. Of course, we cannot be rigid about the exact dates. One cannot say that on a certain day the development of a child ceases, nor can the Minister say that the development of a child as an infant ceases at the age of five. The probability is that in most children the physical mental brain development goes on for about seven years, and the logical thing would be to take the age of seven. There is a considerable body of expert

medical opinion which thinks that the age should be raised above five to somewhere near seven, and if some words can be accepted to make it possible for the local education authorities to do that where it is administratively feasible, I think the Bill would be strengthened and not in any way hurt.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I rise really to save time because one or two of us have got Amendments to a succeeding Clause which will be knocked out if this is accepted. The Minister has already said that "elasticity if necessary shall go further after the compulsory school age is reached." It is also in the White Paper that infant and junior schools should be separate where possible. We want the drafting to live up to the speeches and the White Paper. I think that is all that is being asked, and I rise really to support what the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) said. It is true that in the 1921 Act the infant school is not mentioned, but we think that after 23 years of experience the experiment justifies the inclusion of the word "infant" in the 1944 Act. We also think that the war experience has proved to the country what Margaret MacMillan proved to the few.

Mr. Butler: I may, perhaps, help the Committee to have a proper idea of the Government's policy if I intervene at this stage. There appears to be already general agreement in the Committee that it is important to have elasticity and so to frame the Statute that it is not impossible for children to stay in the nursery school atmosphere beyond the age of five and possibly up to the age of seven. That has been the intention of the Government as expressed in the White Paper and it is, in fact, in the Bill. But the Bill is a legal document and legal documents need a little interpretation, and some of us are not even lawyers. I would like to explain to the Committee that the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) need have no fear that the Bill would preclude the possibility of continuing nursery schools for children up to the age of seven. When I have proved that, I would like to say a word about the Amendment in general and, then, if I may, to keep till the end a little Amendment which I propose to make myself.
Looking at the Bill as it is drawn, there is no need for hon. Members who have


taken part in the Debate to be apprehensive, because if they will turn to Clause 9 (4) they will see that primary schools, which are used mainly for the purpose of providing education for children who have attained the age of two years but have not attained the age of five years, shall be known as nursery schools. I am advised that the word "mainly" has been inserted so that there may be experiments provided for children to stay beyond the age of five. I might have offered a prize to anybody to pick out that needle. That is the method by which the draftsmen have saved the position.
I would like to say a word about the Amendments on the paper. I must acknowledge the fact that the City of Bradford, which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment represents, has made some notable experiments in this particular direction. I should like also to acknowledge the experience which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden) brings into our discussions on this matter. The Government are faced by the following position in trying to arrange the Clauses of the Bill to meet all sides. It is necessary in this to be even more Solomonic than _in considering other matters. There are widely different schools of thought. There is the school of thought represented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), which takes the view that it is important to preserve infant schools in our educational system. He also shows particular interest in nursery schools.
I would say at once that the Government are so far removed from being opposed to the continuation of infant schools that they subscribe to all the sentiments he has expressed in support of these ventures and to the work and sacrifice of those running these infant schools. At the same time we are not at all opposed to the philosophy of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey, and we think that in some instances it should be possible for children to remain in nursery schools after they reach the age of five, but, as has been so rightly said by the hon. Gentleman who also intervened, some children develop at one age and others at another. Therefore, to lay down in a statute of all places that there shall be a sharp dividing line in the life of a child would really be madness and I do

not advise the Committee to adopt so rigid a plan as that. No father or mother would agree to that.
Before I come to suggest how I think we might all be satisfied, I must just say that it is the general view of the Board that about the age of five a change of environment and of teaching is desirable. That is our general view and I have, in this connection, studied the immortal work of Margaret MacMillan and realised the truth of what she said about the value of carrying on the nursery atmosphere for some children to the age of seven. But that does not detract from our general view that attendance at nursery schools within reasonable reach of the home should go on from two to five and that after that a new stage is necessary. I am supported in this by the views of a very eminent psychologist, Dr. Gesell, who said that the five-year-old
has a better understanding of this world and his own identity in it. He is stable and well adjusted in his emotional life, as he is in his intellectual outlook.
That leads the Government to feel that normally there is a reason for adjustment at that age and the Government have taken a great interest in this matter because of the sympathy which has been shown in the Committee to this part of our educational development. We feel then that it will be necessary to keep elasticity in the general system, and we feel that to lay down a rigid rule would be impossible.
At the same time, on examining the Bill in detail we have come to the conclusion that there is no method of ascertaining, either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the House, what in fact the development of English education in this matter is going to be. We have, in fact, discovered as the result of Amendments put on the Order Paper that there is no method of reassuring hon. Members who are anxious about either the continuation of the infant school or elasticity in the nursery school. On examining Clause 10, in which authorities are asked to submit their development plans, we find that in (2, a) so far from there being a delineation of the different types of primary education there is not a provision for a review to be given of the different stages of primary education. There is, therefore, a gap in the Bill, and what we propose is to require the authorities, when submitting their development plans, to


include not only the types of secondary education, but also the types of primary education which we are also keeping elastic. In order to do that it will be necessary to amend the Bill in Clause 10. For that purpose I have an Amendment put down on the Order Paper—Clause 10, page 7, line 14, leave out from "such" to end of line 15—which would require the authorities in their development plans to delineate the nature of the provision of nursery schools, infant schools and of junior pupil education generally and thus enable us to follow the development of English education in these spheres. If I do that I hope hon. Members will realise that the Government has to decide between opposing points of view and the natural way is to have a report or a development plan so that we can see how things are developing.

Sir Percy Harris: I would like to say one word in approval of the very wise and understanding speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do want it to be made clear, and he has made it clear, to those women who have given their lives to small children in infant school work, that their work is not threatened, and that there is every hope that the policy will be to encourage their work to continue and that the life of the infant school is not finished.

Mr. Cove: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement? I am satisfied now, because it throws it back on to the local authorities, and they will have a chance. That is a vital principle and I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leach: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the answer to one simple question which I propose to put to the Minister satisfies me, and I think it will. Notwithstanding the fact that throughout these Clauses the only age mentioned is that of five—which seems to me quite limiting—does the Minister assure me that local authorities will have perfect freedom to continue their nursery school tuition up to the age of seven?

Mr. Butler: Certainly; it is included under the provisions of Clause 9, Subsection (4).

Mr. Leach: I should be glad, with that assurance, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The next Amendment to be called is that in the name of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit)—in page 5, line 31, leave out "expediency of" and insert "need for." It may be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general Debate on boarding schools and boarders. That will cover this Amendment and the five succeeding Amendments: that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) in page 5, line 32, after "in," insert "existing."; that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), in page 5, line 33, leave out from "otherwise," to end of paragraph; that in the name of the President of the Board, in page 5, line 33, leave out from "pupils," to end of paragraph, and insert:
for whom education as boarders is considered by their parents and by the authority to be desirable.";
that in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) in page 5, line 33, leave out from "pupils," to send of paragraph, and insert "for whom such provision is educationally desirable."; and that in the name of the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras, in page 5, line 36, after "remoteness," insert "overcrowded condition or unhealthy surroundings."

Mr. Barnes: Do the Amendments cover that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker)—in page 5, line 37, at end, insert:
and (e) to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils in approved schools and remand homes now under the control of the Home Office.

The Chairman: That Amendment is out of Order as it is not within the scope of the Bill.

Sir Alfred Beit: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "expediency of," and to insert "need for."
I am delighted, Major Milner, that you have decided to allow a general Debate, because I was rather afraid that my Amendment would be looked upon as being restrictive. Since I put it down the President has himself put down a far preferable Amendment covering very much the same ground. I would draw


the attention of the Committee to the curious state of affairs that whereas it is the duty of the local education authorities to establish the various forms of education which are enumerated in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), they have, when it comes to boarding schools, only to consider the expediency of establishing such schools. I took the trouble to look up in Murray's Dictionary the actual meaning of "expediency," and found that it is defined as "a contrivance or device for obtaining an end." That is very different from the need for doing something. It became clear to me that the education authorities, in considering the advisability of establishing boarding schools, were given only the power to establish them, whereas with all other forms of education a duty was imposed upon them. I do not think that is good enough. I am anxious to know whether it will be acceptable to my right hon. Friend that the same duty which is imposed on them in other respects shall be imposed upon them in this respect.
The other point I wanted to make, although it will be over-ridden by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, is that when the Bill was drafted, not only was the establishment of board schools limited to expediency and to a power of the education authority, but the reasons why they should establish them were limited to parents being desirous of this form of education or to the need for providing it for children who live far away from ordinary schools. I am glad that that basis has been much broadened by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When the private education system is attacked it is generally attacked on the basis that it is only available to those who are prepared or able to pay for it. In the so-called public schools there are only 10,000 places, so that whatever steps were taken it would not be possible to make them available to a very greatly increased number of children. The only way, therefore, in which this system can be made more extensive is to build new schools of this type and make them available for a vast number of children who have never benefited from the boarding school system. I was glad to see that in the Second Reading Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) made this remark:

It is rather curious that the boarding school principle should have been supported in the past mainly by the wealthy and opposed by the poor, because boarding schools have far more to give to the poor than they have to the children of the rich."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1944; col. 306, Vol. 396.]
The prejudice against the boarding school system largely arises from the fact that only a limited proportion of the population have been able to benefit by it, or even to try it, If we strengthen the hands of the education authorities in the way that this Amendment aims to do and impose on them the duty of establishing boarding schools, not only in remote areas, but throughout the country, the success of this type of education will soon prove itself and thus get over the prejudice which exists against it. It is essential that the scope of these schools should be much widened over what was originally in the minds of the Department when they drafted the Bill, because we certainly do not want only unhealthy or unwanted children to go to these schools. We are hopeful that the system will prove such a success that there will be a great demand for them throughout the country.
The boarding school is not only good for the character of the child, but it is as a rule very popular with the child. It is a real advantage to a neglected child and, best of all, it is of the greatest benefit to a spoilt child. I dare say that some Members have read an interesting book by a body of social workers called "Our Towns," which was produced shortly after the great evacuation. It is in the form of a survey taken in different parts of the country of the children who had been moved from their normal homes. There were many sad examples in the book of the effect on the child's character of being either neglected or, even worse, spoilt. The moral that can be drawn from it is that, though every deference must be paid to the wishes of the parents, they do not automatically know what is best for their children. There are a great many children in all classes of the community who would benefit enormously by an absence for a period during the year from their parental surroundings. I do not propose that boarding schools should be extended entirely for the benefits that they give to the child. They are of the greatest benefit to teachers also. I read the other day that at a meeting of the Incorporated


Association of Head Masters, the master of Dulwich College said:
Our boarding schools are better off than the day schools in the quality of their masters, not because they were more efficient teachers but because in the great boarding schools there was so much larger a percentage of masters who were ready to devote their entire lives to the good of the school.
In the Debate yesterday many hon. Members indulged in personal reminiscences, and if I may be allowed to enter my name for this autobiographical race, I would say that my own recollections are very vivid of those teachers with whom I came in contact during my school days who were really wrapt up, not only in the ordinary work, but in the welfare of the boys. The best loved teachers were those who really took an interest in the lives of the boys outside school hours. It is not by any means a question of pay, because it is common knowledge that the scales for teachers at boarding schools are not very different from other scales. I believe that there are many elementary and secondary school teachers who would like to have the opportunity of teaching at boarding schools and of taking a greater interest in the lives of the scholars than they are able to do under the present system, where circumstances make it impossible for them to carry on that interest outside school hours except under conditions of the greatest difficulty.
One of the reasons why the system would be of material benefit is that there are some teachers who are not particularly interested in any other than their immediate school work. I have in my experience during the war come across one or two schools which have been evacuated from cities to the country where the teachers frankly have not taken the opportunity that this move afforded to them of really entering into questions of welfare as they did previously. We know that teachers are of varying calibre, and it is clear that they will not do the same thing when the circumstances to which they were formally accustomed have been changed. It is clear that, given the opportunity to do more than the mere school work, the great majority would take a greater interest in the pupils. That would lead to better esprit de corps in the school than is normally the case. The outlook of parents, and of teachers as well, towards this question needs to be changed,

and the quickest and most encouraging way of doing it would be to establish a system of successful State boarding schools, because there is no doubt that they would be rapidly followed by others.

Mr. Martin: I would like to congratulate the President on having put down an Amendment to this Clause, because it very much meets the present issue. This is not a matter on which one ought to express dogmatic opinions, but, broadly speaking, I must confess that, after a considerable period of association with day schools and having been myself at a boarding school, I think that, other things being equal, if the home and the school are both good the day school has the advantage. None the less, there is a case for establishing greater opportunities for children to go to boarding schools.
Three conditions should govern that state of affairs. It should be clear that the parents and authorities equally believe that the boarding school is a desirable form of education. The hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir. A. Beit) said he thought that the parent was not always the best guide. Let us agree that that is the case, but is the authority always the best judge? Is the teacher always the best judge? Can we say that any one person is always the best judge, of the welfare of any particular child? Of course we cannot. The parent must always be taken first into account, and, other things being equal, must always be given the decisive voice. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right to amend the Clause in the sense of putting the greatest emphasis upon the parent's authority in this matter so that nothing that goes out from this House should be thought to diminish the authority or responsibility of the parent in the ordinary way of life in this country.
The second thing that is of importance is that if you are to have boarding schools they should be good boarding schools, and the amenities, teaching and conditions of the schools should be at least equal to the ordinary good boarding school which the paying parent selects for his child. That standard at least must be maintained and preserved for children if we are to send them to boarding schools. The third question which arises is financial. So far as these schools are desirable for the children of the country, no question of finance should


stand in the way, but, none the less, one does not want to rush impulsively into this kind of thing without considering that aspect of the matter. There are local authorities who have the boarding school complex and might be anxious to take advantage of this Clause and set up boarding schools where they were not urgently required, and so spend money which might be put to better use. One of the arguments which has been put forward for making boarding schools more desirable is the distance of the pupil from the nearest school, but the areas in which pupils are a long way from their day schools are precisely those which, in most cases, could least afford to pay for great extravagance in education. That point raises once again the vexed question of local and national expenditure, which I think should be taken into account in this matter.
Again, we might, possibly, have a Board of Education which wanted to make rather expensive experiments of this nature, and it would be most deplorable if the standard of education and of amenity in the day school were to suffer because an authority, or the Board, wanted to spend an excessive portion of the amount available for education upon the board school system. With those reservations I should be very glad indeed to support the Government's proposal and I hope that the Amendment will be adopted by the Committee.

Mr. K. Lindsay: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) and to try to get a reply from the Minister on a rather larger point which is contained in the Amendment, and also in what, I think, is the second Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member. It is very difficult to discuss this matter without having the Fleming Report on the subject, but I think there is sufficient evidence to enable one to come to a conclusion on the point. I have put down many questions in the last two years about this matter, and naturally I welcome this new power. It is well known that unless children were delinquent or were a long way from home, you could not send them to a boarding school, unless, again, you were pretty rich. There is scope at the moment for a good many experiments attached to secondary

schools. There are in this country many boarding houses attached to day schools to accommodate perhaps 50 boys. There is a case in Sussex, which I came across recently, where boys have to stay on later in the evening, because the main problem of the day school at the moment is that there is insufficient accommodation to do any homework. The position is becoming very difficult for secondary school children. Therefore, provision is being made by hostel and otherwise. I know a school in Lewes where this is wanted. Parents and authorities are satisfied with the experiment. They will not be able to go on in the winter without boarding accommodation attached to schools and I hope that the Minister will encourage this kind of thing. There is the same development at Leighton Park.
Then there are the camp schools. I spent this week-end in one of them, where there is a secondary school, and the experience has been that the children's health is better, their homework has improved under supervision, their social behaviour has improved and their sense of responsibility is encouraged. The country life and environment have given them a new sense of well-being. The school report states that before the evacuation, the number of children below Grade IV was 42.6 per cent. Eighteen months after evacuation it was 24.6. Those are the most reliable figures I have been able to get in the country. For those above this grade, the figures are, before evacuation only 32 per cent. and 18 months afterwards, 49 per cent.
It seems to me that we ought to cash in on this war experience and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have control of these schools, which are now incidentally still under the Ministry of Health. Hon. Members may say that I was partly responsible for putting them there in the days of the evacuation, but those days are over. The headmaster of Westminster school in a report upon the same aspect of the matter said:
We return home with lessons not to be forgotten from the years of exile—the moral value of simpler standards—the educational value of self-help, the social value of contacts with your next door neighbour whoever he happens to be.
They had to have simpler standards and simpler clothes, they have
improvised less formal athletics, at the same time academic standards have been improved.


If this is so, I think there is a good case, although I do not rest my case on the great public schools at all. We are in an adventurous and experimental age, and I want to see our local education authorities breaking new ground.
But the main reason why I have risen is because I am not quite sure whether the Amendment by the President covers another group of children. I wonder whether it is generally known that there are somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 children in this country who are homeless, or orphans, or who have been picked up on the streets and, who have been committed to a fit person, which is sometimes the local education authority, and that there are four different Ministries, Pensions, Health, Home Office and the Board of Education, inspecting or not inspecting these children. I want to know from my right hon. Friend whether these children can be brought within the scope of the Bill. I have taken the trouble to look up the original paragraphs to Part I of the Bill, which say:
institutions devoted to that purpose,
which means education. Therefore, I ask whether the public assistance schools will no longer come under the public assistance committees of the local authorities but under each local education committee itself. The same applies to children in workhouses and remand homes and approved schools. There are 12,000 children who are destitute or impecunious. This covers some of the points raised in the hon. Member's second Amendment. There are 21,000 children who are impecunious in charitable homes and schools, only a proportion of whom are inspected by the Home Office. The rest are inspected by the Ministry of Health. There are 10,000 children in approved schools. Hon. Members may ask why I raise this question. The answer is that it has been proved that 75 per cent. of the children in approved schools were originally children belonging to the above categories. In fact, there are probably, especially in view of the increase in the number of illegitimate children in this country, something like 100,000 children who are in homes, institutes, hospitals and various types of school and institution.
It is high time that these children were brought under a central Ministry, which should be the Ministry of Education, and

that the main responsibility for their welfare should fall upon the local education committees. Some committees already look after this matter. I believe that Manchester does. Others do not. Many authorities are extremely worried about the great mass of destitute children. These are not children who are necessarily special children and they do not come under the Clause in the Bill which deals with mental and physical disability. Same of them are perfectly wonderful children. These children are a great asset to the country. I could tell stories about what has happened to these children which would not reflect well on the country in spite of the devoted work of many charitable homes, on the provision made for the happiness of this great mass of children. I want the children to come within this Clause.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of Order. May I clear up a point which I submitted to your predecessor, in the Chair, Mr. Williams, on whether the issues raised by my hon. Friend should be discussed? I understood that it was not in Order to do so I am very anxious that they should be discussed, and if the matter is in Order I should like to make a contribution.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Amendment in page 5, line 37?

Mr. Barnes: Yes.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that that has been ruled out of Order. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was speaking on the subject of the Amendment which had been ruled out of Order, and I was wondering whether he ought to carry on; but since the matter has been raised, I must warn him that he should not go any further into the subject of special schools.

Mr. Lindsay: My hon. Friend asked me to inquire why—

Mr. Barnes: What I wish to ask is whether the Board of Education could really assume responsibility for them within the terms of this Measure.

The Deputy-Chairman: Subject to further advice, I would go so far as to say that they are outside the scope of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The Chairman of the Committee, when he ruled the Amendment out of Order, said that the reason was that it was outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: That Ruling would apply equally to the remarks which the hon. Member was making. Perhaps, therefore, he will not pursue the subject any further.

Mr. Lindsay: I will not pursue this one moment further, because there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak. I wish to raise this point. I will just display an elaborate and coloured map which will show hon. Members the chaotic arrangements of these four Ministries, Health, Pensions, Home Office and Education.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not display. It is going much too far when we have pictorial as well as verbal illustrations.

Mr. Lindsay: I support very strongly the general sense of this Clause. I am not sure whether the President's Amendment should not be amended to "parents or authorities," because in some of the cases either the parents do not exist or, as my hon. Friend said, there are cases where the children have literally have to be taken away for the good of the children. Therefore, with that possible Amendment which I would suggest to the President I have the greatest pleasure in supporting this Clause. I hope that there will be a wide variety of experiments undertaken by local education authorities and by other people with the valuable idea of boarding.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the Amendment which stands in my name included in those you wish to have discussed in this general discussion, Mr. Williams?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I think it is.

Sir J. Lamb: In that case I should like to associate myself whole-heartedly with the remarks of other hon. Members on this Sub-section (d) of the Clause. I have for long been an advocate of the principle of the wishes enunciated in this Sub-section and of power being given to local authorities to have these boarding schools. I do not propose to follow the example of some

hon. Members and make a Second Reading speech on this question. There was a great deal I would have liked to have said on Second Reading, but, unfortunately, I was not able to do so as I was not called. I am strongly in favour of the principle of boarding schools being provided by the local authority. If I may enter into the discussion which has just taken place in regard to this certain class of school—not those you have ruled out of Order, Mr. Williams—I believe the other schools would come under the purview of the local authority and could be taken over by them as approved schools. With regard to the children who have no parents, I think the education authority is now practically in the position of parents of the children for educational purposes. I hope that the answer later on will be that these schools will be included.
I do not propose to move or press my Amendment, because I want briefly to support the Minister's Amendment which I think includes the object which I had in mind in my Amendment. I should like to thank him for the Amendment, which includes the considered opinion of the authority in addition to that of the parent. Naturally, I would not do anything to diminish the responsibility or rights of parents with regard to the education to be given to their children, but in practice we find that all parents, like other individuals, are not always right, and there are occasions when the teachers or the local authority, with very close associations with the children, have opinions and have come to a conclusion which should be given full consideration. The Minister in his Amendment is giving what I was trying to do in mine, the provision that the authority should have some power of representation in this case. I want to thank him for that, and when the time comes I shall not ask to move my Amendment.

Viscountess Davidson: I should like to support the Amendment. Two of the camp evacuation schools have been in my constituency and I have had a great opportunity of seeing them develop and seeing the enormous improvement in the children there. To start with, in one camp there were children who came from 180 different schools. Out of them has been created a public school with a public school spirit. I would not have believed it had I not


seen it and the wonderful atmosphere which has grown up in that camp in a comparatively short time. I realise that the success depends very much on the headmaster and teachers. It is perhaps asking even greater devotion from school teachers who are hardly ever off duty if they are working in boarding schools but I believe that the results have been so remarkable that that has been sufficient reward in itself.
I very much welcome this Clause of the Bill, because I think it may be the beginning of something very important for the future. I am not, however, happy at the use of the word "expediency." It is the wrong word, it is permissive. The word should be "need" or "necessity." If it is permissive local authorities may turn away on the grounds of expense, or it may be found that London or Birmingham can afford it whereas Wiltshire, Cornwall, Cumberland or some of the other poorer counties cannot. There may be influential people on local authorities who are against boarding schools and who might obstruct. Having had this opportunity of seeing what may be done in a very short period of time I want to see this system extended as much as possible in the future. We shall have available camps which are now being used for war purposes, which will be admirable places for boarding schools of this type. Having seen the improvement in the boys in these camps in my constituency in three or four years I want to see that public school spirit brought into a great many more schools and the advantages of boarding schools given to many thousands of other children throughout the country.

Mr. Ede: The sentiments that have been expressed in the course of the Debate I think truly reflect public opinion outside. There has been a very considerable change of view on the part of parents whose children have hitherto regarded the elementary and secondary schools as their normal places of education with regard to this matter during the past five or six years This has been very striking, as was shown in a referendum taken by the Federation of Women's Institutes into this very problem. They asked by an overwhelming majority, I think something like 160 to one, that provision should be made, where is was required, for children to receive education under residential con-

ditions. I had the advantage of attending a Women's Institute in a village on an occasion when this matter was under discussion. The curious thing was that this was not advocated by the mothers who were there on any egalitarian principle, but purely from a consideration of the educational advantages and disadvantages that their children, who were attending secondary schools, experienced under present circumstances.
This was a village not very far from a substantial county town where there were two secondary schools, one for boys and one for girls. These village mothers took the view that their children lost a substantial part of their education because they were unable to participate in the out-of-school activities which made so much a part of secondary school life for the more fortunate children who lived in the town. They desired that their children should participate in all the school societies that were open to those who were not dependent on a very infrequent bus service, and an even worse train service, for getting to and from school. This is a very considerable alteration in the outlook of that type of parent. Working class memories are notoriously long, and the history of residential education in this country for the working classes has not been a happy one down to the very recent past. The defective, the mentally and physically defective, have been catered for in residential institutions, the morally defective have been catered for in residential institutions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I shall have to interrupt the hon. Member to remind him that we are dealing with this Clause.

Mr. Ede: The reversal of public opinion has, I think, sufficiently progressed now to warrant us making provision in this Bill for dealing with the problem of residential schools, and my right hon. Friend has placed on the Order Paper an Amendment which I gather meets the views of those who have put down most of the Amendments that have appeared on the Paper on this subject. I hope that the Committee will agree to accept the words he has put down. We recognise that in this matter there must be consultation between the parent and the local education authority. It does not


follow that every child whose parents think him or her suitable for a residential education is of necessity suitable, and there may be some cases where the local education authority may desire to bring to the notice of the parents the desirability of the child securing education under residential conditions.
With regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) my right hon. Friend feels that it is desirable to stick to the words that have been placed in the Bill. The Clause has already been amended once by the former Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend with regard to the wishes of the parents to deal with the subject which was under discussion when the Committee resumed to-day. This also is a matter in which the wishes of the parents are concerned and it would appear desirable in this case to follow the same form of words as were used in the other case where so wide a discretion is left. With regard to why the phrase the "need for" has not been used in this Clause, and those matters which are within the old established statutory system of the country, the explanation is that we desire that there shall be a very wide range of experiments in this matter. We welcome all that has been said on that subject, but we hope the Committee will agree to leave the word "expediency" in the place where it has been placed in the Bill in dealing with this subject.

Mr. Cove: I rise to support the request of the Parliamentary Secretary that we should leave in the word "expediency" and not substitute the words "need for." The truth is that this Amendment raises a very vital issue in our educational methods and system. The Debate has indicated, I think, that Members realise it, for throughout the whole Debate there has been, so far as I have gathered, an emphasis on the benefits derived from boarding schools or camps and so on. Quite frankly I do not share the general view that has been expressed. Therefore, because my admiration is not so positive for boarding schools as that which seems to have been expressed by hon. Members hitherto in the Debate, I support the retention of the words, "the expediency of." One of the proudest things in our educational history is not at all related to the boarding schools.
One of the proudest things in our educational history is related to the day municipal secondary schools. They have made a remarkable contribution to the educational development of this country. I do not subscribe to the theory that it is a good thing in general for children to be taken away from their own localities and their own homes. The educational process proceeds not only inside the school, but inside the home, and in the locality. I believe that the nearer the schools are to the problems of the localities in which they are placed and the nearer the children are to the problems even of the home, the more fully they will realise the difficulties they will have to face as they grow into manhood. The boarding school makes the real life that they have to live somewhat remote. I am very glad that the Government have stood firm, and I hope they will continue to do so, on this word "expediency." I am all in favour of experiment, but I am not in favour of taking away large numbers of children from the problems of their home life. I think we ought to put in a word for the remarkable contribution that the municipal schools have rendered to Britain in the last 50 or 60 years.

Sir Georģe Schuster: I am very grateful to the Minister for the Amendment which he has put down and which is to be moved later. It seems to me to meet all the needs of the case. Although I entirely differ from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) as to the value of boarding schools, I agree with him in preferring the word "expediency" to the word "need." If we leave expediency, I think we open a wider door than if we ask the authorities merely to consider the need. Many things may be expedient which could not be proved to be necessary. But the point I chiefly wanted to make concerns finance. We must all recognise that, when we come to extending boarding school education, we get right up against the financial difficulty. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said that it is very difficult to discuss this matter when we have not the Fleming Report before us. I hope that we shall have another opportunity of discussing the question of boarding schools in all its aspects when we have that Report. We are discussing whether the local authorities should consider the expediency of providing board-


ing-school facilities. There was among local authorities some fear of the financial liability under which they might be put if parents had the right to say "I want my boy to go to a boarding school," when they could not afford the fees. Now there must be agreement between the local authority and the parent, as a result of the Government's Amendment. As one who supports very strongly the extension of boarding-school facilities, I wonder whether we are wise if we contemplate leaving the financial burden for the sort of thing that we want to see in this country on the shoulders of the local authorities. One of the values of boarding-school education, as I see it, is that children from all over the country can meet; the schools are not confined to the children of one locality. That being so, the schools should not be the financial obligation of particular local authorities. I want to see an education authority taking the most intimate share in the running of any boarding-school in its area; but if we are to take boarding-school education seriously, we have to face the fact that the financial burden cannot be carried by the local authorities. I hope that at some stage my right hon. Friend will tell us something about that point.

Sir A. Beit: On the question of "expedient," I was not altogether convinced by the last two speeches or by that of the Parliamentary Secretary. I thought that the parallel which he drew with the Amendment was not altogether valid. But I am perfectly willing, having regard to the satisfactory answer he gave to the Debate, to withdraw my Amendment, especially in view of the fact that I have another Amendment down on Clause 10, regarding the plans of the local authorities, which I hope he will accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, to leave out from "pupils" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
for whom education as boarders is considered by their parents and by the authority to be desirable.

Mr. Lindsay: Could my hon. Friend give us some satisfaction on the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster)? It is very important, in the case of schools which are at present camp schools, that, although they are financed not by the local authority but from the centre—

Mr. Ede: I should have thought that this would have been better raised on the financial Clauses of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was wondering how far the hon. Member was going to get out of Order before I stopped him.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, at the end, to insert:
and (e) to the need for providing accommodation for the preparation and serving of school meals for all pupils.
I move this Amendment in order that this Clause, which governs schools as a whole, shall contain this statement about the provision of accommodation for school meals, and that such meals shall be regarded as just as fundamental a part of education as the provision of playing fields or of instruction, or any other part of school life. During the war there has been a very great expansion in the feeding of school children. The number fed in December, 1941, was 8.9 per cent. of the whole, and in October, 1943, it had risen to 26.5 per cent. of the total number of children. Some people may say that it has risen despite the difficulties of the war situation, but the war situation has made people realise the necessity of children being fed and therefore stimulated the provision of school meals, so that it has actually increased. The difficulties are the provision of equipment and premises, and the Board of Education have issued various circulars laying emphasis on this aspect of the matter.
I want it to be made plain in the Bill that it is part of the duty of the local authority to provide premises and equipment. The necessity would not arise if all local authorities were very ready to provide school meals for their children, but even at this moment there are 12 local authorities, out of the 315 in the country, who provide for no children at all, and there is no local authority in the country which provides for over 65 per cent. of the children. Only seven local authorities provide for over 50 per cent. of the children. In the larger number of cases, the percentage of children provided for is very much smaller than that. That means that a very considerable proportion of children are not provided for.
One of the chief difficulties is that of equipment and premises. That is one


reason for my putting down this Amendment. But there is a further reason. Some local authorities still consider that only if children are necessitous have they a claim to be fed. I want that idea swept out of existence. All children going to school ought to have one substantial meal every day, in all circumstances. The question of how you are going to arrange for payment, whether by individuals or otherwise, should not arise. It is important to make the provision of premises a vital and fundamental part of the Bill. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister replies, he will be able to give satisfaction on this point. I do not want to quote a large number of statistics, but I have here a valuable paper by Mr. F. Le Gros Clark, which I recommend all Members to study. This is a very valuable document, and it is not easily obtainable. We ought to turn our attention more and more to the provision of school meals. If we are going to make that a reality, it means providing the premises where the children can be fed and the equipment which will enable the meals to be cooked.

Mr. Cove: I heartily support this Amendment, not only from the point of view which the hon. Member has mentioned, that is, the general principle of the feeding of children and the necessity that children should have meals provided whether they are necessitous or not, but also because of the concrete nature of the Amendment. The hon. Member wants provision made for
accommodation for the preparation and serving of school meals for all pupils.
I want that direction given because in hundreds of schools in this country there is no preparation and there is no accommodation. It seems to me essential that the physical conditions should be there in order to have proper school feeding. In many schools the children are fed in the ordinary classrooms, and they have to go back to the classrooms after the meal. That is not right. There should be separate accommodation—if you like, school restaurants. In addition to that proper physical accommodation, there should be at all schools the means for cooking and serving the meals. The cooking and serving—I am now thinking more particularly of the serving—should not, as now in many cases, rest on the

shoulders of the teachers. The teachers are appointed to teach, and I say that it is a very bad thing that extraneous duties, such as taking care of school meals, should be put upon those who have to do the teaching service in the schools to the extent to which it has been done in the past. There ought to be, not only proper accommodation, but a staff to supervise the cooking of the meals and the feeding of the pupils. School feeding has now gone on for a considerable time, and, indeed, is accepted in the educational world generally as necessary. It is accepted by the public as necessary, but again—and I know what I am talking about and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—there is at the moment, throughout the administrative education service and throughout the teaching profession itself, a great deal of irritation, almost amounting to annoyance, and a feeling of frustration, at people being directed from their proper job where school meals are concerned.
I hope this Committee, through the Minister, will give a direction to local education authorities so that we shall not get meals anyhow, higgledy-piggledy, in classrooms here and there, but that proper accommodation will be provided, and a staff, apart from the teaching staff, appointed to provide and supervise these meals. The eating of a common meal by the children is a great co-operative experience. It is a training in good manners, and a coming together, as it were, in a great co-operative act—almost an act of worship, if you like to put it that way. That ought to take place under conditions which will help the children to receive the greatest benefits. I gladly support the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment is limited to accommodation, and, therefore, I hardly feel called upon to reply to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). His point will arise on a later Clause of the Bill, when I hope he will not have exhausted his right to speak on it. This is a request that proper accommodation shall be provided for the preparation and service of the meals. We are determined, as I think our action during the past two years has shown, to have a very substantial extension of the schools meals service, and in spite of what the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden


Guest) said, we do regard it as a considerable achievement that we should have increased the number of meals to the number we have reached during the war. Of course, at the moment, the Government are bearing 100 per cent. of the cost of buildings and equipment.

Mr. Cove: Go on doing it.

Mr. Ede: May I say that, in the regulations that we propose to make, under Clause 9, Sub-section (7), where it is stated:
The Minister shall make regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them conform to such standards as may be prescribed,
we intend to insert a regulation making provision for adequate premises for the preparation and serving of the meals. That would appear to be the appropriate place to deal with it in this Bill. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that these regulations will be so framed, and I hope he will feel that this will meet the point he has legitimately raised.

Mr. Gallacher: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to say that every Member of the Committee will appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says on the feeding of our children. But it is a responsibility of this House, and I draw attention to the fact that I have an Amendment down dealing with the question of staff.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to add:
and provided that the number of pupils accommodated in any one school shall not exceed five hundred.
As a Scottish Member, moving a further Amendment to this Bill, I should perhaps explain that we have watched with interest and great sympathy the points—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is a very narrow Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: I quite agree, Mr. Williams, and I was merely expressing my temerity in putting forward—

The Deputy-Chairman: There is really no reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should explain the reason for his temerity on every occasion.

Sir T. Moore: I will accept it then that my temerity has been accepted. In proposing this Amendment may I say that I imagine it will probably meet with the same response as that given yesterday on the question of smaller classes. We have not with us at the moment the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who would, no doubt, encourage us to realism, or my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), who would encourage us to idealism, while possibly the reforming spirit opposite would deny us the right to either. I feel that, in regard to classes, there must be some definite limit, otherwise we may as well drop this Bill altogether and with it the ideas of creating and forming the better world which we are told to expect after the war. The purpose of my Amendment is first, to secure a smaller school, and, therefore, more schools, and I hope a better England. My reasons are largely connected with the quality of the teachers we want. I admit that this might seem a rather round-about way of approaching the justification for my 500 pupils per school, but I think, Mr. Williams, you will find that it is necessary for me to develop my argument in this way. I think it is the general desire that the status of teachers should be enhanced, not only in their own eyes, but in the eyes of the community as a whole. If, therefore, we are to induce a higher type and the best qualified type of teachers to enter this great profession, which, after all, should be our object, then I think we must provide them with better opportunities for promotion and more adequate remuneration.

The Deputy-Chairman: Really, that cannot be discussed here. We have been into the question of classes and this is a very narrow Amendment indeed—merely the question of a 500 limit to a school—and it is not fair on the Committee stage of the Bill on small points to bring in such questions as would defeat the object of the Committee stage.

Sir T. Moore: If you listen to my next sentence, Mr. Williams, I think you will appreciate why I have developed my argument in that way. We must have smaller schools, and therefore more schools, because, unless we have more schools and smaller schools, we cannot have opportunities for promotion and better emoluments. I leave that point


now, but there is one further point which I think you will feel is within the limit of the issue raised. So far as my experience goes, both as a child and still further as a man, I do not think that any school bigger than 500 can maintain the personal contact between teacher and pupils necessary to develop mind and character. Again, I think that, according to the experience of many people more qualified than myself, it has been found impossible to develop the individuality of the pupil and also to foster the spirit of communal life if you have a larger number over which the headmaster must preside. I realise that there are a number of obstacles to the suggestions I have made. I know that the question of bricks and mortar will be advanced as an argument, and a very proper one, and that the shortage of teachers will be another. But I go back to the original motif, that unless we try to aim at some definite standard, we may well fall dawn and achieve no standard at all.

Mr. Ede: Really, in a country with the population of ours, so diversely spread over the surface of the soil, it would be very unwise of the Committee to insert any figure such as this in the Bill. I believe that that, in itself, is a really sufficient answer to the hon. and gallant Member.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clement Davies: This Clause, as it is framed, fails to carry out the purpose of the Bill as set out in Clause 1, and places a burden upon the local authorities which they will not be able to carry out. I want to make it quite clear, at the outset, that I think that this Clause, allowed in this form, will mean that—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but I have made it perfectly plain that we cannot go into the question of the burdens on local authorities. It may possibly be done on Clause 93, but we cannot deal with it here.

Mr. Davies: Surely, Mr. Williams, I am entitled to deal with this Clause as it stands, as on the Third Reading of the

Bill. What is contained in the Clause is this—that it proposes to place a duty on local authorities to provide schools. I am therefore saying that they cannot do this—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Member says they are incapable of performing a duty or a matter of that sort, that is another matter, but he cannot discuss the financial side or the question of whether they can perform this duty financially.

Mr. Davies: Surely, I am entitled to discuss their incapacity and show that this Clause will therefore fail in achieving the purpose which was the intention of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: I must be quite clear about this. We can discuss their incapacity, so long as it has nothing to do with finance. We cannot deal with their incapacity owing to financial conditions.

Mr. Davies: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but, if a duty is placed upon them which they are incapable of performing, one surely is entitled to discuss how far they are incapable of performing it and what is the nature of their incapacity; whether they could do what the Committee suggests they should do, and wherein they will fail in doing that, so that the whole purpose of the Bill is destroyed? All that is before the Committee at the present moment is up to Clause 8 and I cannot look beyond that. I do not know what may follow.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are only dealing with Clause 8.

Mr. Davies: I know, and I shall confine myself to Clause 8. So far the Committee have passed the Clauses up to and including Clause 7 and we are now discussing whether we should also pass Clause 8 and then proceed with the further Clauses of the Bill. It would be out of Order to discuss what comes subsequently to Clause 8. I do not know whether the Clauses will come before the Committee in their present form or whether any Amendments will be allowed. I look at the form of the Clauses that the Committee has already passed. Clause 1 sets out the policy we are discussing.

The Deputy-Chairman: No.

Mr. Davies: Perhaps you will bear with me for two minutes, Mr. Williams.

The Deputy-Chairman: We must not go back on the other Clauses. If one hon. Member was allowed to do it, every hon. Member might wish to do so, and it would not be right.

Mr. Davies: I agree. I did not mean that you should bear with me, Mr. Williams, for two minutes while I was out of Order. But I want you to realise the point to which I was referring, and that is, that in the part of the Bill that we have already passed, the whole object is to establish a national policy. When we come to Clause 8 and see how it is being carried out in the Clause, I say that object is not being fulfilled. As it stands, it is the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be sufficient schools available for their area. Then comes the definition of what that means:
The schools available for an area shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable.
What is the good of presuming to legislate in that way, when we have local authorities incapable of performing the duty of providing the number, or the character, or the equipment of schools to afford for all their pupils opportunities for education? If this Clause is passed we shall be continuing the bad system which exists at the moment. We have not a national system; we have never had a national system. We have a partly national and partly parochial, or partly national and partly local authority system. We have a national curriculum and examinations but the buildings, the equipment and all that is concerned have to be provided by the local authority. Whether they are provided or not, depends upon the local authority and its capacity so to do. One has heard so often that the objections to a system of education, which enables one set of children to have a system of education better than that for other children, depend upon the wealth, or the lack of wealth, of the parents. Be that as it may, what are we doing in this Clause? We are instituting two systems whereby a wealthy authority can provide something for their pupils which will be denied to the pupils of a poorer authority.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to interrupt again, but there we

are going beyond the Clause, and again the hon. and learned Member is comparing two authorities on the question of finance.

Mr. Davies: I am only pointing out that there is an incapacity in one authority to provide the education that another authority is able to provide, and that is a double system and is not fair.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would not mind the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, if he had not said that one was poorer than the other. The point really is that here we cannot discuss the question of finance at all.

Mr. Davies: They are poorer in finance, but they must be poorer in the material and the officers they can employ and in the extent of their outlook and in everything else. This is vital. It goes to the root of the problem. I am pointing out that, if we leave this Clause as it stands, the Bill will be nothing but an urban Bill, paying no attention whatever to a great part of the country outside—the rural areas which are incapable of doing what the urban areas are doing. Children in rural areas have suffered for generations. If we pass the Clause as it stands, we shall be continuing that inequality. The urban children will be benefited under the new system and buildings will be erected by local authorities for their use. They will have new buildings, new playgrounds, better kitchens and dining rooms, a staff to look after them, because they can afford it, but what are we to do with regard to the other local authorities? The Minister may give directions and control under Clause r, but if the local authority breaks down the whole system will break down. Surely, I am entitled to reinforce my argument by giving illustrations of the position. Take my own county, which will now be directed—

Mr. Butler: This is placing the Government in rather an embarrassing position. On your Ruling, Mr. Williams, I would not be entitled to give a full answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the financial issues involved in helping such a county as that which the hon. and learned Member represents. Therefore, it is really impossible for the Government to have to listen to this argument and not be able to reply to it.

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: In dealing with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) a few moments ago, Mr. Williams, you indicated that the grant system might be discussed on Amendments put down on Clause 93. If we could be given an assurance that the whole subject of grants and their distribution could be fully discussed and decided by the Committee on Clause 93, I think that that would meet the situation. One ought not to regard Clause 8 as being the whole of this Bill. It is part of the Bill; it is associated with other Clauses, and we have to look at the Bill as a whole, and not at one particular Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to the Minister, I do not think that my position is a very easy one, but on the whole the question of finance of local authorities should come in on Clause 93. That is why it is wrong to have a discussion here on finance, because it would simply tend to cut out discussions and Amendments on Clause 93. That is why it would be better if we could avoid finance entirely here, so as to leave it over for discussion on Clause 93.

Mr. Jenkins: There is only one further assurance for which I would ask and that is that, that being so vital a part of the Bill, we ought to have an undertaking from the Chair and the Minister that there will be no such thing as a Guillotine applied to prevent a discussion on that subject. It looks as though the discussions on the Bill are going to be very prolonged, but it is vital there should be an adequate amount of time given for discussion on the finances of the Bill.

Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order—

The Deputy-Chairman: May I be allowed to deal with the point here?

Mr. Davies: May I put my point of of Order first? I gave way to the hon. Member. I thought that he was raising some point of Order. I do not know how this intervention on my statement to the Committee arises. I was putting my point and I was asking for an assurance from you, Mr. Williams, on a Clause which we may never reach. I do not understand what this means.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I may be allowed to try to get through this point

of Order. Obviously, I, as Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, cannot give an assurance on the question of the Guillotine or anything of that sort. No Chairman could, but, on the other hand, when you have a difficulty such as this, and it is obvious that financial matters should be discussed on Clause 93, and it is said by the Minister and ruled by whoever is in the Chair at the time, that the right time is on Clause 93—then whatever conditions of Closure or Timetable were laid down, it would be only right for the authorities to remember that this very vital discussion had been postponed until that time. That is the most I can say. Obviously, I cannot bind the Committee, but I think that that would probably be the opinion of the Committee.

Mr. Davies: I am very much obliged, Mr. Williams. I realise that you cannot possibly give any undertaking from the Chair at the moment and that the Minister cannot, in any way, do more than say what is in his mind. I realise that this may be put right on Clause 93, but suppose it is not. The position as it stands at the moment is that the present amount of grant, taking it through and through, made by the Treasury to local authorities is 50 per cent. As far as we know, that may be continued. Clause 93 certainly gives power to the Minister to make allowance in that respect. It says:
The Minister shall by regulations make provision:
For the payment by him to local education authorities of annual grants in respect of the expenditure incurred by such authorities.
"In respect of" is a very general term. It may be 1 per cent., 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. That will be the moment, without a doubt, when it will be right for the Committee to discuss what the percentage should be, whether it should be 100 per cent. or less. But, in the meantime, we have to face up to the fact that the burden will have been put by this Clause upon local authorities of providing schools and all their equipment, leaving it until we get to Clause 93 to decide how much they will get out of the Treasury. We have only one guidance, and that is either in the White Paper or in the preface in the Financial Memorandum, where we are given the global figure. My recollection of it is that at the end of seven years the total amount of expenditure per annum will be—

The Deputy-Chairman: I really must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, in fairness to other Members of the Committee, not to keep on with this matter of finance. He himself admitted that it comes up on Clause 93, and therefore to bring out here the global figures of finance, and all these other points, is not in keeping with this Clause.

Mr. C. Davies: With all respect, Mr. Williams, I was only pointing out to you my difficulty without discussing finance at all. I am saying that the local authorities who will be concerned with all these matters will have had this burden put upon them under this Clause without knowing what the future may be. Surely this is the moment when I may discuss whether the local authority is the proper body to carry that burden?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is exactly what we cannot discuss here. It comes under another Clause, and if we are going to discuss Clauses separately it cannot possibly be right for any hon. Member to say that because these burdens will be imposed at some period he must lay down the different details. The whole of the financial detail comes up under Clause 93.

Mr. Stokes: Further to that point of Order, do I understand your ruling, Mr. Williams, to be that under this Clause no burden will be laid on the local education authority?

The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously I could not give a Ruling like that.

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that the whole of the Bill will come into operation at the same time, so that the financial arrangements will apply at the same moment as the burdens become operative?

Mr. Maxton: I think your Ruling is technically correct, Mr. Williams, but surely there is something wrong about it. This Clause imposes a duty on the local authority. This Committee has to decide whether what we are asking the local authority to do is possible or not. My difficulty in speaking on these things is that I always fly for my own impressions to a part of the British Isles which is excluded from the Bill, but, if this were a Scottish Measure, I would say it is impossible to

impose duties like that on Inverness-shire or on Ross and Cromarty without the Committee having some idea as to how much money is going to be asked from the local authorities. I think you must allow the Committee not to discuss details of finance, but to discuss at least whether reasonable provision is to be made to enable poor and remote local authorities to raise the amounts they will be called upon to provide. I think you are bound to do that.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is exactly what I am not bound to do, and I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman now to carry on the discussion on this Clause as it stands.

Mr. C. Davies: It places me in a difficulty, because one can only illustrate the points that one desires to make against this Clause by references to present conditions. A duty is being placed on all local authorities, if we pass this Clause, to provide a standard of schools which will be the same throughout the country, and that is the duty which they cannot undertake and which should never have been placed upon them. The right way to have done this would have been to take the burden from the local authorities and place it elsewhere. Surely I am entitled to say that the local authorities, as at present constituted, with their past history, the present condition of their schools, with the amount of inefficiency that has been going on for a great number of years in failing to take care of these schools, are in an impossible position, so that they cannot carry out the duty which this House is trying to impose upon them. In my county there are 104 schools. I have had a report upon them from the County Architect and the Director of Education. Of the 104, 39 are in such a condition, and have been for a number of years, that the only thing to be done is to pull them down as early as possible and destroy them. With regard to another 40, the burden of putting them up to a standard of decency will be a tremendous one. Seventy-nine out of 104 schools will either have to be replaced or amended almost completely. How can a county like that, which has failed to give decent school buildings in the past, undertake this burden of creating new schools of the standard which ought to have been the standard there


ages ago, and will be the general standard throughout the country? It is a duty they cannot possibly perform. My county is only one of a great number of others similarly situated. There is the county of Anglesey, where, again, the schools are bad.

Mr. Butler: If the situation is so bad in Anglesey, why is it that Anglesey leads the whole of the administration for which I am responsible in the giving of school meals to its pupils?

Mr. C. Davies: For the very good reason that now 100 per cent. of the grant is paid by the Government. Prior to that they could not feed the children. I am sorry, Mr. Williams, if I am out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Member has been led astray by the Minister.

Mr. C. Davies: But this is not the only burden that local authorities have to undertake. This is going to place a burden upon some of them that they cannot possibly carry out. New burdens are being placed all the time, and rightly placed upon local authorities What is to happen with regard to the other burdens which they have to undertake? Which will have priority, this burden or a burden placed by another Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go on to other Acts. The discussion has been wide enough already.

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Member has taken half-an-hour already.

Mr. Coleģate: Leave it to Clause 93.

Mr. C. Davies: Really, this is most vital. I have had an interruption from the Minister to say that I have been half-an-hour on a matter which affects hundreds of thousands of children and it will be years before this matter is put right.

Mr. Butler: On a point of Order. My point is that I am ruled out from discussing the grant system—which is the only way I can help my hon. and learned Friend—and am not permitted to give my answer. I have been into the grant system very thoroughly in the last few weeks and I am very interested in the

matter myself. I am precluded from answering the hon. and learned Member by the rules of Order, and therefore I maintain it would be better if we proceeded without discussing finance.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to intervene but we are liable, if we carry this discussion far, to get at cross purposes. If we go on with this question of finance burdens it must inevitably create a difficult position on Clause 93 where, I think, the Committee would like a full discussion. For that reason I take the liberty, if the Committee will permit me, to suggest that it would be advisable not to have long speeches on this Clause as it now stands.

Mr. C. Davies: Thank you so much, Mr. Williams. I will reserve my remarks until then. I am much obliged for the encouragement I have had on this subject.

Mr. Gallacher: This is an exceptionally important Clause, and if we can make sure that all the people responsible are able to carry out the work set forth in this Clause, there is no question that we shall be able to provide education of a very high character for the children of this country. That is the essential thing. I know some hon. Members consider that the general idea of education is not to fit the children for this world but to provide angelic voices for the next one. They themselves, by the way, do not provide a very attractive advertisement for their own thesis. I would also like to mention, in passing, that they are in the fortunate position of not having to produce statistics as to the location of the population in the celestial fields, but the President of the Board of Education and his Department are concerned with statistics, and I am convinced that if this Clause is effectively operated—taking into account the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and the buildings and the various facilities essential for the building up of classes and for the extension of the school system, the playing fields, and other attractions, are provided, in a very short time the President of the Board of Education and the other Departments associated with him will be able to produce statistics of health, of height, of weight, and of educational standards such as this country has never known before. Therefore, I welcome this Clause. I am certain that the Committee—always taking into account what will


arise under Clause 93—will be prepared to assist the Minister in anything that can possibly be done in order to ensure that this Clause is carried.

Mr. Parker: Since this Clause lays down the duties of local education authorities to provide sufficient schools for their areas, why has the opportunity not been taken to co-ordinate all the activities of local education authorities? There are one or two activities that do not come under the Board of Education at present, though many of us feel they should do so, such as the public assistance schools, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Health.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is what we cannot have here; it is outside the Bill, and has already been ruled out.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I do not wish to deal with the Amendment that was moved yesterday, and fully argued, in connection with the reduction of the size of classes, also I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is going to try and meet us when we come to Clause 10. I would like to ask whether he could give us an answer to the point which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. One of the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary gave for not accepting the Amendment was that the size of classes would be mentioned in the Regulations. What I want to be clear about is this: do those Regulations come under Clause 101, and will they be laid before this House later so that we shall be able to discuss them then? I also want to know whether it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to give us some intimation of what the figures with regard to the size of classes will be in the Regulations.

Sir Richard Wells: I want to raise a point on Sub-section (2, a) with regard to the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided in separate schools. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that will stop those schools which are in receipt of grant or aid from carrying on the dual function of secondary or primary work.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not wish to delay the Committee or to put you in any difficulty, Mr. Williams, by following what was said by my hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I would like to turn to one section of the Bill which is highly praiseworthy, namely, Sub-section (2, c), of this Clause, which makes provision for special treatment for those disabled in mind and body. This should strengthen the hand of the Minister. He already has considerable powers and I hope he will put them into operation, because I am afraid that they are not being applied in the way they should be at the moment. I hope he will give this matter serious consideration. I want especially to point out the advisability of the need for getting mentally deficient children into special schools. When I say "mentally deficient" I do not mean those who are grossly deficient, those whom an unskilled observer would at once say were deficient. At the present time many young children leaving school at 14 have never been tested for mental deficiency. Between 14 and 16 they go from job to job and associate with men and so on, whereas if they had been kept under observation at school they would have been spotted and sent to special schools. Classes are so big now that teachers are unable to recognise these deficient children; they leave school at 14 in the ordinary way and go into industry. I had a report the other day which shows how important it is that this Clause should be applied to its fullest degree. Out of 63 female juvenile delinquents who were examined 22 were found to be mentally deficient. That is about 35 per cent. Their intelligence quotient, as the psychologists say, was only 75 out of 100. Such children require discipline for the whole of their lives. Indeed, it is essential to protect the rest of society from them—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is getting rather wide.

Dr. Thomas: I merely wanted to give that example to show how important it is that the Minister should apply the provisions of this Clause to the utmost extent.

Mr. Butler: I hope the Committee will now be ready to let us have this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) asked me a question about the Regulations. I am not able to go any further on that matter at the moment, but she was right in stating that these Regulations will be laid


before Parliament and that Parliament will have in those Regulations the size of classes which the Board attach to their condition of grant, and they will be able to consider the matter at that time. No doubt in the course of our deliberations I shall be able to expand this a little more. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Sir R. Wells) will look at Clause 103 he will see that there is a definition in the proviso saving the position in regard to the preparatory departments in secondary schools, a matter to which we shall be able to give attention a little later. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) is right in thinking that for the first time we are bringing special schools and handicapped children more into the body of the Bill.
As regards the Clause in general, nobody would wish to differ from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in thinking that we are imposing fresh and important duties on local authorities. The time will come when the Government can answer some of the points which the hon. and learned Member managed to introduce into our discussion and I would like to reserve my position to do so, without any inhibition, with the utmost frankness and, I hope, with devastating success. Meanwhile, I would beseech him not to adopt such a pessimistic attitude. There is a school in his village which is very remarkable. That, I know, because I have seen it for myself. With regard to the other local authorities of the country, I am convinced that, although they will wish to receive as much grant from public funds as they can get, at the same time they will be able to carry out their duties under this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(County schools, auxiliary schools, nursery schools, and special schools.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY:

In page 6, line 2, to leave out "nursery schools or."

Mr. Lindsay: I propose not to proceed with this Amendment and the others in

my name, because of the safeguards which the Minister gave earlier to-day. The reason for the first Amendment—

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member is not moving I must call the next Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out from "schools," to "which," in line 21.
This Amendment is necessary in order to secure that the expression "nursery schools" is not confined solely to those schools maintained or assisted by a local authority. It is quite clear that there may be, and indeed there are, many such nursery schools and special schools which depend on voluntary effort. This Amendment and the next one in my name on the Order Paper are more of a drafting character than anything else.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 25, to leave out from "schools," to "which," in line 26.—[Mr. Butler.]

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, after "maintained," to insert "or assisted."
I understand that a local authority, where it is not in a position or does not think it wise to make provision itself for maintaining the school, has the power to decide that the children for whom it is responsible shall attend a school to which it gives assistance. The Clause, as drawn, places on the local authority only the duty of seeing that the premises to which the children are sent are adequate if the authority itself maintains the school. It is only right and fair that if children are to be sent to schools that are assisted by a local authority, it should be the duty of that authority to see that such schools come up to the same standard as the schools maintained by itself.

Mr. Butler: I must explain to the Member that I cannot accept this Amendment because it would be drawing the Bill rather too wide to insert the words "or assisted." It would mean that in the case of a grant given by a local authority it would be a statutory necessity for those premises to conform to the Board's building regulations. That would be a great inroad on present practice and a great thing to demand in return for, perhaps, a small grant, and we could not accept these


words. The position of independent schools will be radically taken in hand in Part III of this Bill and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, although it was valuable to elucidate the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 6, line 37, at the end, to add:
and such regulations shall prescribe standards which shall achieve parity of conditions for all types of secondary schools maintained by a local education authority.
Sub-section (7) of this Clause provides that the Minister shall make regulations requiring local education authorities to secure that the school premises of every school maintained by them shall conform to such standards as may be prescribed. In the Bill the various types of secondary schools are not referred to, but in the White Paper there are three types of such schools mentioned—modern, grammar and technical. The White Paper states that it is desirable that there should be a free choice as to whether a child attends one type of secondary school or another, that it should be according to his particular ability, and then goes on to say:
It is manifest that the different conditions in different types of secondary schools shall be broadly equivalent.
That recognises that the status of these three types of secondary school shall be equal. At the moment the status of the secondary school is far higher than that of the senior school or, unfortunately, even that of the technical school. I was pleased, indeed, to find that the White Paper recognised the desirability of the status of the various types of secondary school being equal. That ought to be reflected in the type of premises. The object of the Amendment is to provide that, in making Regulations, the Minister shall ensure that the premises of the various types of secondary school should be equivalent. Of course they must not be equal, because there are different types of schools, but I want an assurance that there will be no priority of the grammar school over the modern or over the technical. In view of the fact that the principle has been accepted in the White Paper, I anticipate no difficulty in the Minister accepting, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I have no difficulty in accepting the principle, though I would

rather not specify one particular question which has been put into the Bill as having to be included in the Regulations. I will accept the hon. Member's plea that similar, or equivalent, standards shall be applicable to secondary schools as a whole. He was wise enough to say one cannot get complete equality, owing to the different types of establishments which exist now, but we can ensure that, when a child enters the secondary sphere, it may have similar standards laid down for the physical surroundings in which it finds itself, with equivalent opportunities for recreation, physical or mental, and that, I think, will assure the hon. Member that we intend to accept the spirit of his Amendment, though I would ask him to leave the matter to the Regulations. If he wishes to be assured that Parliament will see the Regulations and know what the Government has in mind, he will realise that they are to be laid before Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand pant of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Development plans as to primary and secondary schools.)

Mr. W. H. Green: I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, to leave out "one year" and to insert "six months."
The Clause lays down that every education authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare estimates and draw up plans for operating the Act and that this report must be submitted to the Minister within 12 months after the passing of the Bill. In our submission that period is unduly long. The Bill has met with an extremely favourable reception in the country. The suspicions and misapprehensions that exist are to do with the apparent looseness with which some of the Clauses are framed and the possibilities of delay if they are passed with their present wording. Some of us feel that six months would be a much more appropriate time. After all, this part of the Bill will come into operation in April, 1945, and there are 12 months after that, so it really means that education authorities are to be allowed at least 18 months to prepare and submit their schemes. I think it may be reasonably supposed that they are already exercising their minds as to the schemes they will submit. Two years is an undue period


and lends some countenance to the suspicion that there is too leisurely an air in many of the provisions of the Bill.
I am not unaware of the immense difficulties which war and other conditions impose on education authorities but, taking all that into account, I would ask the Minister seriously to consider, unless there is some insuperable difficulty which is not apparent to some of us, whether the period could not be reduced. If he sees his way to do that, I am sure education authorities, like local authorities in most of their activities, can rise to the occasion and I believe they will find it possible to get their schemes submitted within six months prior to April, 1945, as reasonably as they could be supposed to do if it was extended to 12 months.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we should take this Amendment together with the next one in the name of the hon. Member—to leave out from "date" to "prepare," in line 45.

Mr. Green: The second Amendment would delete the words "such extended time as the Minister may allow," which further aggravate the point of view that I have been advancing. If 12 months is considered not too long, later in the Clause the Minister asks power even to extend that date to such period as he may desire. That is even more dangerous than the part of the Clause which my Amendment seeks to deal with. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept both Amendments and fix the target within which local authorities must draw up their plans at six months rather than 12, or such period as a more dilatory Minister than he might seek to impose.

Mr. Tinker: I support the Amendment on the same line of reasoning as my hon. Friend. It is felt that two years from April, 1945, is too long. Inserting six months in place of 12 may cause the Board of Education to get the thing going more quickly. Local authorities may take more time than is necessary if they have 12 months. We do not like the Minister having it in his hands to allow still more time to deal with it. Probably the Minister cannot accept these Amendments, but they show our keenness to get the Bill working quickly, and that is what is behind them.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was for many years a distinguished member of the London County Council, one of the more progressive authorities in the country, and I ask him to contemplate the task that we are placing upon the London County Council. A complete survey has to be made of the whole of the area, a complete survey with details has to be made of every auxiliary school, and an estimate has to be prepared of the cost of bringing it up to date, and the managers have to be served with notice. Local education authorities are working under very great pressure at the moment, with reduced staffs and with a great amount of extra work to do arising out of the war, which will not end, even if the war against Germany ends, before 1st April, 1945. We are anxious to get on with the job as quickly as possible but, clearly, we cannot put on local education authorities a burden which we know they will be incapable of carrying. In view of the very large measure of work which we put on them, I think 12 months is the minimum time. With regard to the other point, we do not desire to have to extend this provision, but there may be cases where the work to be done is so heavy that it will be quite impossible for local education authorities to complete it in the time. It is not, as my hon. Friend says, such period as the Minister may desire, but such period as the Minister may allow, which is a rather different thing. We should not desire that there should be any extension at all but, should we be faced with a case of breakdown which is quite unavoidable, the Minister must be in a position to allow schemes to be prepared and submitted to him.

Mr. Silverman: I find it difficult to follow my hon. Friend's argument. He says the burden placed on local authorities is so heavy that, though they may be able to do it in 12 months, they could not do it in six. That has no relevance whatever either to the Clause or to the Amendment. It is within six months or 12 months after the date on which this part of the Act comes into law, and that date is not until 1st April, 1945. Therefore the difference is not between six months and 12 but between 18 months and two years, roughly speaking. Surely, whatever the burden may be, 18 months is quite enough for them to prepare their schemes. Is it contemplated that once


the Bill is on the Statute Book no local authority is going to begin even the survey or the consideration of a scheme until 1st April, 1945? Is that the spirit in which the Bill is to be operated? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman contemplates as to the speed and the urgency with which this great task of reconstruction is going to be pursued? I really cannot understand how my hon. Friend brings himself to approach this question, apparently taking it for granted that no one is going to begin to inquire or survey or make plans about anything until the last minute contemplated by the Bill, and Heaven knows those minutes are late enough. My hon. Friend has approached the whole consideration of the Amendment apparently giving his blessing to the idea that they must not begin doing anything now but must wait until April, 1945, and that then it would be wholly unreasonable to ask them in six months to survey their area. What has the London County Council been doing for the last 25 years?
If the local authorities who will be charged with these duties have not some idea now of what will be required, then they have just been neglecting their duties. Let us assume that nearly all the authorities in the country have been neglecting their duties. They do not know what is in their areas, they do not know what will be required, and they have no schemes in contemplation. Even then from this moment until six months after the 1st April, 1945, is 17 months, and why in the world should not that be enough; and if it is not enough will another six months make any difference? We really think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at this matter again and that there ought to be some appearance of seriousness. Let it at any rate appear that he means business and that the local authorities are really expected to begin now to do something about it. He ought not to lend sanction to the view that local authorities can postpone undertaking the obligations laid upon them in this Bill until 1945, which is the whole basis on which his argument rests.

Mr. Coleģate: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) appears to show a complete lack of understanding of the position of the local authorities in this country to-day. They have had placed on them, owing to the war, an

immense burden of work, most of it carried on voluntarily, and to say that in these circumstances six months is nothing is an argument which is totally unfair.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to be unfair. I suggest to him that he has not understood my argument. I said it was wrong to look at the Clause and the Amendment as the difference between six months and 12 months. It is nothing of the kind. It is the difference between 17 months and 23 months. That is my argument.

Mr. Coleģate: I fully understood the hon. Member's argument, which was that an extra six months was no use. That is fantastic nonsense. To suppose that because you cannot do a job in 17 months therefore you cannot do it in 23 months is perfect nonsense. The amount of time required for any particular job varies very much with the complexity of the job. Some education authorities will do it easily in the time laid down in the Bill; other authorities, known to Members of this House, will have great difficulty in doing it; and it is only right that there should be this proviso, which the hon. Member has misinterpreted. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that it was a case of having discretion in certain difficult cases to allow an extra few months in order that an adequate scheme may be prepared. No one could be keener on getting this Bill through quickly than I am, but to get it through in a shabby way will ruin the whole purpose of it. We want the schemes under this Clause to be thoroughly sound and to be thoroughly considered, so that when they are put into operation there may be as little amendment of them necessary as may be, because this Measure is not something which is going to be used for a period of a year or two—it is for generations ahead. To say that in remaking the foundation of education in this country you must do it in 12 months or you must do it in 17 months and not 23, is, in my opinion, to under-estimate the value and profound effect of the scheme which we are trying to enforce in this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Professor Gruffydd: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, after "Minister," to insert "in special circumstances."
I shall be very short, but I want to give


the reason why I have suggested that those three words "in special circumstances" should be added to this Clause. It is because of what happened after the previous Education Bill. In spite of the many directions in that Bill the reorganisation which was proposed did not take place and year after year passed without anyone even attempting to justify the delay. I suggest that the words "in special circumstances" should be put in to prevent the Minister giving his consent to or acquiescing in the same scandalous procedure as happened before. "In special circumstances" are the strongest words I can think of. They would permit poverty to be a sufficient excuse for postponement but they would not allow laziness or unwillingness on the part of the director of education to be sufficient reasons for postponement as too often they were in the past. In other words, special circumstances cannot possibly cover personal omissions and personal unwillingness on the part of the officials.

Mr. Ede: This point has really been covered in the previous discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I should put it better by saying it was covered in the reply which I made on the previous discussion. We are not at all anxious that there should be any extension of the time, but we do ask the Committee to allow us to be able to make an extension when, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, it is necessary so to do in order to get the scheme adequately prepared.

Mr. Silkin: It does not seem to me much good putting into the Bill that authorities are to have a year to submit their schemes, when, after that, the Minister can give an indefinite extension without any reasons whatever, and the reason which may guide the Minister may not appeal to the House. The Minister referred to the London County Council, and I want to assure him that whatever is in the Bill will be duly carried out. If he says six months, then the scheme will be prepared in six months. Of course, the London County Council has large resources and can do it, but I feel that the extension of time should not be given except as a special measure. It should not be regarded as a normal thing that any local authority which has not been able to produce its scheme in the time should ask for an extension which may be for more than a year. There is

nothing in this Bill which limits the amount of time that the Minister may give for extension, and, therefore, I believe it is quite reasonable to say that any extension should only be given in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. C. Davies: I cannot understand why this Amendment cannot be accepted. It is said that exemption will not be granted except in special circumstances. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are not going to be there for ever. There will be a change of Minister and the new authority will not want to be bound by this. They will say, "We want a free hand to extend the time as much as we like." We ought to put in now that we will not grant an extension except in special circumstances.

Mr. R. Morgan:: I am not clear as to the wording of this Amendment. I am just as anxious as the mover of the Amendment to see this Bill carried through as quickly as possible, but I understood from the Minister that he was going to allow extra time in special circumstances, whatever those special circumstances might be. What I think my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) has in mind, is that, before any special circumstances are agreed to, they should be laid on the Table of this House so that we may have a chance of examining them.

Professor Gruffydd: My Amendment did not go so far as that.

Mr. Morģan: I rose to ask what are the special circumstances which the hon. Member has in mind. I do not really understand how those particular circumstances would make it any clearer than giving the Minister permission to extend the time after considering the facts he has before him.

Mr. Cove: I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept this Amendment. I presume that if he were going to grant a delay, the delay would only be based on special circumstances. It that is so, why not put it in the Statute? I would say quite frankly to my right hon. Friend that not being prepared to place a phrase like this in the Bill does throw some doubt on the sincerity of the intention to operate this speedily. By doing this, he would remove a number of doubts that were expressed by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who seemed to suggest that there was not too much drive


and purpose behind the Bill. I say that the rejection of this phrase confirms the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and, if only on that ground, it would be well to give us the feeling and, indeed, give the local authorities the feeling that extra time can be given only in special circumstances. That would give added impetus to the whole business, and it would convince local authorities that we mean business. Since it appears from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that the Government mean to put this into operation, I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not accept the burden and give themselves the statutory power to do what they want to do.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend and I have listened to the views that have been expressed, but there is this difficulty, that if we put in these particular words, it may encourage people to find special circumstances and then to come to us with the argument: "You said that if there were special circumstances you would grant us an extension." May I say that we are anxious to meet the views expressed and to make it abundantly clear to education authorities that they are expected to get on with the job and complete it within the time laid down. If the Committee will allow us, we will examine this part of the Clause again to see if we can put in any words that would help to make the desire of the Committee quite plain. I hope, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will feel that we can now go on to another part of the Clause.

Professor Gruffydd: With that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "such," to the end of line 15.
The object of the Amendment is that explained by me in the Debate on infant and nursery schools, to ask local authorities in their development plan to give a delineation of the general education provided for junior pupils. By taking out these words, "county secondary school or auxiliary secondary school," we are enlarging the scope of the development plan and introducing a desirable Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert:
including a sufficiency of county schools to meet the needs of those children whose parents desire such schools at which their children may attend.
The Amendment desires that the education authority, in specifying what additional county or auxiliary schools are required, shall have regard to the needs of parents who desire county schools. There has been ample discussion, and I have no doubt there will be plenty more before we get to the end of the Bill, on the needs of those who require their awn denominational schools. We want by this Amendment to protect the rights and the demands of parents who require county schools, that is, schools established, maintained, run and controlled by the local education authority and the State. It may seem strange to many Members who are over-enthusiastic for their denominations that there exist masses of people who want their children to be educated in State maintained schools. There should be in the demands laid down by this Clause on local authorities a provision that they must be charged with the duty of satisfying the needs of those who want State schools, or county schools as they are called in the Bill.
Two problems arise. There is, first, the urban aspect of the matter. There are in different towns denominational schools which have more places than can be filled by their own denominations, and local authorities send to them children who do not belong to the denominations; indeed, they have to go because they are the only secondary schools available. There are denominational secondary schools to which local authorities send between 35 and 50 per cent. of the school population. The first thing that an education authority, charged with the duty of seeing what additional schools are necessary, should direct its attention to is seeing that county schools, not denominational schools, are provided for the children. Then there is the country aspect of the matter. The Committee will observe that the Amendment states that there shall be a sufficiency of county schools to meet the needs of those children whose parents desire such schools at which their children may attend.
Earlier to-day the Committee accepted an Amendment moved by the right hon.


Gentleman which agreed that the needs of parents should be taken into account. What is to happen on the basis of that Amendment in single-school areas? There are 4,000 of them in England and Wales, over 200 in Wales, and over go in the County of Carmarthen—single-school areas with Anglican schools only. What about the wishes of the parents there? When it was asked whether that Amendment would over-ride the power of the Church, if it finds 50 per cent. of the capital cost, to insist on having a church school, with the whole power of the law compelling people of any other denomination to go to it, the answer was that that was a matter for consideration and something to be taken into account. If that Amendment gives the parents an over-riding power so that in a predominantly Nonconformist area there shall be a county school, I am prepared to accept it. If it does not I ask for these words to be inserted so that, whatever the cost, the local education authority, taking account of the wishes of the parents, shall be charged with the duty, if somehow or other 50 per cent. of the capital cost is found by the denomination, of putting up a county school to which the majority of parents desire to send their children and to which, under this Amendment, they will have the right to send them.

Mr. Cove: I want to follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument. As I understand it, it is a serious argument to come from this side of the Committee. Am I right in assuming that my hon. and learned Friend wants 100 per cent. of public money for schools which will be directly related to the religious opinions of the parents?

Mr. Huģhes: My hon. Friend says he wants to follow me. I only wish that I could follow the point of his question. I have never suggested putting up any denominational schools. What I want are county schools, which are undenominational schools and belong to the State. I am suggesting that where the people want a State school they should have it.

Mr. Cove: This Amendment raises a big issue. My hon. and learned Friend, who, I take it, represents Nonconformity in this Debate, seems to have taken up

the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who represents the Catholic interest. I cannot see what difference there is between them. My hon. and learned Friend relates the provision of county schools which will be fully provided by public money—

Mr. Huģhes: And will be undenominational.

Mr. Cove: That may be my hon. Friend's view, but these county schools provided by public money will, as I understand it under his Amendment, be related to the wishes of the parents. The parents may be Nonconformist. They may be Jews. Indeed, they may be agnostics, or atheists, Liberals or Tories. If we are to have public money spent on the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend it seems to me it will Balkanise the entire educational system. The hon. and learned Member, without knowing it, has raised a very deep issue. I can understand his intense feeling against the existence of Church schools in single-school areas throughout rural England, but, on the other hand, I want, what he really wants, complete public schools in those areas determined by the public necessity and not by the principle that parents in groups shall decide what schools shall be put up. I want to warn my hon. and learned Friend that he is enunciating a principle which hitherto, as I have seen it, has come from opinions and bodies to which he is apparently bitterly opposed. He has swallowed it without knowing it, and I hope that he will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I would not like to interfere in the internecine strife on the other side, which resembles the situation which so frequently arises in the Balkans. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment is inspired by the deep necessity of having some sort of palliative to the difficulties of the single-school area. I fully understand what he has in mind. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has shown some of the difficulties of his proposal. I would not choose this Clause or this portion of the Bill in which to insert a provision of this sort. It is essential to leave the whole review of their area to the education authority. We have already inserted an Amendment, which I moved, on the subject of paying attention to the wishes of the parents. As


I said in moving it, the general Clause in which it appears pervaded the whole Bill, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat my speech on the present Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman may take it, therefore, that in general those ideas are now instinct in the general drafting of the Bill.
With regard to the difficulty of the single-school area, the hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps under-estimates the provisions which we shall be considering later. The controlled school, for example, is a form of organisation which will go far to meet the interests of those who live in single-school areas. I do not think it unlikely that in the rural areas the controlled school will be a permanent feature. He also under-estimates the provisions of Clause 53 on the subject of transport. It may well be that there is a county school within reach of children to which they can be carried. When we are considering that Clause I shall be glad to give sympathetic consideration to anything which the hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward. I am anxious to help his friends in single-school areas, and I hope that the indications I have given will show that I am not unsympathetic.

Mr. Georģe Griffiths: Has the Minister any knowledge of how many schools are to be controlled schools as against non-provided schools?

Mr. Butler: I have never been so unwise as to give an exact figure.

Mr. C. Davies: For the purpose of this Amendment I would give an instruction to the local authorities. As it stands, the local authorities are to specify what kind of schools will be required. Left in that way, they might say: "There is already a school here. It is a denominational school, and there is no need to have any additional schools in the area." The whole point of this Amendment is to ask them to consider the circumstances and desires of the parents and, bearing those things in mind, to say whether there ought not to be more county or county non-denominational schools. There may be a large number of Nonconformists whose children have been compelled in the past to attend a denominational school and who may be compelled to do so again in the future, merely because the local authority have not taken into account the wishes of the parents. I do not know

whether the mover of the Amendment is satisfied with the assurances which have been given by the President, but it is helpful to know that we can raise the matter again at a later stage.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Before I mention the assurances given by my right hon. Friend I wish deliberately to dissociate myself from the interpretation put upon my remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I would go further. He talked to the Committee about the needs of the rural areas in England but I would remind him that I am alive not only to the needs of the rural areas of England but to the rural areas of Wales as well. In view of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend, I will join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in expressing satisfaction. I would enter a small caveat as to how far transfer may resolve the difficulty. Subject to that, I accept the assurances given and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, at the beginning, to insert:
give particulars of the arrangements made and proposed to be made by the authority for the provision of boarding schools and.
We feel that it is necessary to bring home to local authorities their obligations with regard to providing an adequate number of boarding schools and incorporating them in their plans. By including words such as are proposed we shall keep prominently in front of local authorities the need for thinking of boarding schools, as well as other schools, in their plans.

Mr. Ede: I have had to resist previous Amendments moved by my hon. Friend and his friends. Therefore, I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Woolley: I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, after "authority," to insert "including the size of classes."
In view of the fact that this subject was discussed very fully yesterday, I do not propose to take more than two or three minutes to move this Amendment. I would draw the attention of hon. Members


to what the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday to indicate that this problem of the size of classes goes to the root of the Bill. After the emphasis that was placed on the matter, I am sure that everyone will agree. I rather understood my hon. Friend to indicate that this was the appropriate point in the Bill to introduce some Amendment. Without enlarging on the merits of the proposal, which I am sure are appreciated by every Member of the Committee, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: The Government have given the greatest consideration to the Debate which took place yesterday and we have considered the possibility of an insertion into Clause 10 which would help to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment. If we examine Clause 10, we see that it is in that Clause that we lay upon the local authorities the duty of framing their development plans and sending those plans in to us. We do not think it will be as satisfactory to wait for the authorities to send us their proposals in regard to classes as it will be if we ourselves give an indication of what we consider the size of classes should be. This would be the wrong place in which to include a reference to the size of classes.
We are, therefore, put back to our original suggestion that the size of classes must be set out in the Draft Regulations of the Board so that the conditions of grant include a condition which lays down the size of classes. We think this is a very much more effective way of securing a given size of class than simply to ask local authorities to send their development plan to us before we make the condition. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the method we are proposing is better than that which he proposes. The Regulations must, under Clause 101, be laid before Parliament and Parliament will have an opportunity of considering and debating them. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that this will be an effective method for securing a reduction in the size of classes.

Major Woolley: In view of the assurances which my right hon. Friend has given and the fact that the Regulations will lay down the size of classes to be envisaged in the plan, I am sure that my hon. Friends will feel that the position is

satisfactory, I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(3) A local education authority in Wales shall, before submitting their development plan to the Minister, consult the Central Advisory Council for Education for Wales referred to in Section four of this Act.
The Amendment relates to development plans in Wales. I want to make it clear from the outset that this is not an endeavour in any way to make the Central Advisory Council for Wales an overriding authority upon the local education committees, or to insert any procedure which would cause delay in the formulation of development plans. We realise that, in Wales at any rate, whatever the position may be in England, there is an overwhelming necessity that the plans of the different local education authorities should fit in one with another. Therefore we suggest that when the local education authorities, which in Wales more particularly will be the county councils, are in course of formulating development plans, they should have a word with the Central Advisory Council for Wales, so that when two or three adjoining counties are submitting their proposals, there should be some body to give them a word of advice as to how those development plans can fit together.
I can give my right hon. Friend a concrete instance. Take the dividing between the counties of Cardigan, Pembroke and Carmarthen. He will find that the educational centres in West Wales are Cardigan, which is on the borders of Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, Llandyssul, on the borders of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, Lampeter, which is within Cardiganshire but is very near to the county of Carmarthenshire, and Machynlleth, which is in Montgomeryshire, but which also serves the counties of Merioneth and Cardiganshire. I cannot see how the development plan of the five counties can make a complete whole unless the matter is discussed with the Advisory Council, which can impartially suggest and advise the local education authorities as to how their development plans can fit together. Our sole desire in this Amendment is to make the development plans fit together as a whole, to make a perfect mosaic for Wales, at any rate. I therefore ask, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment


in terms, he can accept it in purpose, and see that the purpose is carried out.

Mr. Butler: We discussed this important subject before, on Clause 4. We do not desire that these advisory councils should interfere with the actual administration of education. I have been in touch with important local authorities in Wales and with the Federation, and I cannot help thinking that they would be a little distressed at the suggestion that their own responsibility to their own areas should in any way be upset by association with an outside body. The hon. and learned Member raises the problem of the counties and the need for making a network of educational progress in Wales. I suggest that it would be better if those who are responsible for the administration of education in the counties got together with the Federation, which I believe has an important future in Wales, and that the Federation should build itself up and should leave to the Advisory Committee the duty of direct advice. I cannot accept the Amendment as it is designed, because it would take away from the power of the educational bodies the development of their responsibility and it might take away from the power of the educational authority itself.

Mr. Cove: I rise to support the Minister and I hope that he will give a quid pro quo. I do not see why, in the name of a Parliament elected on the basis of popular election, people should be compelled to suffer dictation from a body which is selected by the Minister himself. As the Minister says there is in Wales a Federation of authorities, and if co-ordination and advice are necessary that body already exists, as the Minister has pointed out. I therefore heartily support the Minister in resisting this Amendment and I hope that when I come to further Amendments later he will reciprocate.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) has a very good idea which he has expressed in connection with this Amendment, a very desirable idea, that education in Wales should not be developed in a haphazard manner in one district as against another. Arising out of the Amendment he has put forward and the remarks he has made I would like to give a word or two of advice or offer a word or two of wisdom.

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member can only do so if his words of wisdom are connected with the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I was about to say that Members from across the Border who have had very wide experience on this question of education will be very ready and willing to assist our Welsh colleagues in developing their education in an organised manner and in insisting in getting a Department of State in Wales similar to Scotland.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I am somewhat encouraged by the remarks of my hon. Friend. I hope I may interpret them as meaning that in one way or another he will do what lies in his power and in the power of his Department to see that Wales has a correlated plan. I am somewhat disturbed by the assistance he has received from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) but that does not deter me from asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the end, to insert:
() The local education authority for a county at all stages in the preparation of a development plan shall consult the council of the county districts within the county and shall furnish full particulars of the plan to such councils and the Minister shall consider any representations that such councils may make.
The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that the councils of the county districts shall be consulted by the local education authority at all stages in the preparation of a development plan, and to secure that the local education authority shall supply the councils of the county districts with full particulars of their proposals, and that the councils of the county districts shall be able to make representations to the Minister which the Minister shall consider. It is a matter of considerable importance and it is rather surprising that such provision has been omitted from the text of the Bill. I think it is a very conspicuous omission considering my right hon. Friend's desire, which he has frequently expressed, and which we all know he feels very strongly, to maintain local interest in education and to encourage the councils of the county districts to believe that they will remain an integral part in the national scheme. The omission to include any provision for


bringing into discussions councils who have been Part III authorities and for many years have done admittedly good work might be regarded by such authorities as rather scurvy treatment. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend does not desire they should feel that they have been treated discourteously. I am sure that he will also recognise that it is in the interests of the plans that they shall be devised after all considerations have been put forward and that these district councils should be brought into consultation. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Loftus: I would like very briefly to support on two grounds the proposal moved by my hon. Friend. The first is to avoid waste. There is a great deal of experience and knowledge and enthusiasm working to-day in these local councils. The second reason I support the proposal is that we want this great scheme to get together the utmost good will of all parties concerned, and if there was any suspicion in any case that these councils were not to be consulted it might damage a section of the scheme. I hope, therefore, that this provision will be put in as mandatory instead of permissive.

Mr. Ede: Although the hon. Member who moved this Amendment devoted some part of his speech to dealing with the Part III authorities, his Amendment in fact goes far wider than those authorities, and in view of the desire of the Committee that there should be reasonable speed in preparing these development plans, I hope the Committee will realise, in considering this Amendment, exactly what the implication would be. Take the county with which I have been connected. We have 32 county district councils and the Amendment asks that everyone of them shall be consulted at all stages in the preparation of the development plan. Quite clearly that would involve an amount of time and consideration of detail by people, many of whom have never been connected with the education service before, that could only tend to delay. In the whole of England and Wales there are 309 municipal boroughs and 572 urban districts. I do not know how many rural districts there are, but rural district councils would also

be brought in. It is clear that this would involve a very considerable delay in the preparation of the plan.
Under the first Schedule the question of the duties to be devolved upon the Divisional Executives will come up for consideration. Where the Divisional Executive is that of an excepted district it may very well be that in some cases the duty of preparing part of the development plan relating to that area may be devolved upon the Council of the excepted district.
Where the county district is not an excepted district it will nominate members to a Divisional Executive whose duty it will be to consider the educational needs of the district, and I should have thought that in most, if not all, cases the county council in preparing their development plan would take consultation with their Divisional Executives, who will certainly have a substantial part of the administration to carry on after the plan has been prepared. I venture to say that that will be a far more effective form of consultation than saying that every municipal borough, every urban district, every rural district irrespective of its size, shall be consulted at all stages. We are exceedingly anxious, as the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) said, that local interest shall be preserved and shall be aroused in some districts where it has not hitherto had much chance of finding expression. In the scheme prepared under the first Schedule we can do this more effectively than in the words of the Amendment, which really would impose such a duty with regard to consultation that either it would be so perfunctory as to be valueless, which we do not desire, or would be so overwhelming that it would impose intolerable delays in the preparation of the plan.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to accept an Amendment on these lines provided that it is limited to Part III authorities, because I think they should be included in consultations at the development stage?

Mr. Ede: We are very anxious to allay the legitimate fears of the county district councils in this matter who have been Part III authorities. I am advised that paragraphs 8 (b) and (e) of the third part of the first Schedule are sufficiently


wide to enable arrangements of the kind I have indicated to be given effect to, and I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Mellor: But not during the development stage?

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to do what he has done and take the words of the Amendment that have been moved. However, I did not understand the argument of the hon. Member to mean that what he really desired was that every detail of the development at all stages should be submitted for representations to be made by all the county districts, though I agree that is what the. Amendment says. I rather think that what is at the back of the minds of those who have put down this Amendment is merely to secure what I think my hon. Friend has sympathy with, that a county district shall have the right to make representation to the county authority about the plan in so far as it affects their area. It is not intended they should have power to make representations on the county scheme as a whole but that they ought to be consulted, to be given information and to have the power to make representations, no matter how small they are, about the development plan as it affects the area for which they are the council. I take it that what my hon. Friend had in mind was that the part of the Schedule to which he referred gives power for them to be consulted in that way. I do not think it covers every district. I rather thought that what was intended here was that every elected authority should have a voice in the development of an education plan for the area for which they are elected representatives. That was behind the Amendment as I understood it.

Mr. Ede: If that is the point behind the Amendment what I said with regard to the intolerable delays that would occur has all the greater point.

Mr. Silverman: Surely not.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend makes his speech and always interrupts the people who have the very difficult task of replying. His arguments are so logically expressed that they present enough difficulty in answering without having one's mind put off by further interruption. There are

1,356 county district councils in the country.
There are 475 rural district councils. They are in addition to the numbers I gave before, for municipal boroughs and urban districts. These bodies are elected for specific purposes; among those purposes is not education. We propose to give them a share in education in the future, through the divisional executive, which will contain those members of the district council who are interested in education. This is the proper body to consult. In the case of the excepted districts—that is, by and large, the larger ex-Part III authorities—the divisional executive is the town or urban district council, so that in those cases the consultation will be with the council. In the case of the smaller authorities, by grouping them with the larger executive we shall get a reasonable idea of what their needs are. The third part of the Third Schedule will indicate to hon. Members interested in this Amendment that we are with them in their desires and think that this is the most effective way of meeting them.

Sir J. Mellor: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has suggested, I desire only that district councils should be consulted on matters affecting their districts. I would like to make one correction. When I inquired whether Part III authorities would be consulted at the development stage, I meant, on the preparation of the development plan. I would like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary could reply "Yes" to that also?

Mr. Ede: Clearly that would depend on the scheme. The smaller Part III authorities—those, let us say, of under 30,000 people—are in a very different category from those, let us say, of over 60,000 people. It is impossible to give a general reply on a subject which goes into such different details.

Sir J. Mellor: It may be that these small Part III authorities are not going to enjoy any educational authority in future, but they have done so in the past. They have the experience, and surely that experience should be at the disposal of the local education authority, and, if necessary, of the Minister.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: The Minister's reply does not mean that inevitably the smaller authorities are ruled out?

Mr. Ede: No; that will depend upon the scheme that is drawn up. They have the right, when the scheme is drawn up, of making their representations and of being consulted with regard to the powers that will be delegated.

Amendment negatived.

Professor Gruffydd: Might I ask for your guidance, Major Milner? I have an Amendment dawn—in page 8, line 10, to leave out "other than county schools." This Amendment is linked with a further Amendment that is to be moved. The point of the Amendment is that all secondary schools and not merely the auxiliary schools should have governing bodies of their own. The main argument on that point will come up on Clause 16, and I wonder whether I should move this Amendment now?

The Chairman: The hon. Member says that the main argument will come up on Clause 16. If so, perhaps he does not wish to move this Amendment now.

Professor Gruffydd: The point is, whether that later Amendment is going to be called or not?

The Chairman: I have not had an opportunity of considering that Amendment. If there is any doubt the hon. Member had better move this Amendment.

Professor Gruffydd: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "other than county schools."
The county school, whether secondary or elementary, is not going to have a governing body of its own. It is though separate from the other schools in the same area to be included under a common scheme. In drawing up this Clause, it was quite impossible to include among the managers who were to be consulted by the local education authority the managers of county schools, because the managers of county schools would be the local education authority themselves. The matter is rather complicated, and the whole question of whether secondary schools in future are to have their own governing bodies or are to be lumped into one holus-bolus of a county authority is, I think, one of the basic points of this Bill. I trust the Chair enough to be fairly confident that when we come to Clause 16 it will be possible to discuss this matter then, and I merely move this Amendment formally.

Mr. Butler: In the circumstances, I think the Government had better reserve their answer until the Clauses which affect the governors of county schools are considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, at the end, to insert:
The appropriate Diocesan Education Committee shall for the purposes of this Sub-section be deemed to be managers or governors as well as the actual managers or governors of a school in which, either by trust or usage or repute, religious instruction according to the doctrines of the Church of England is given.
This Amendment is designed to define further the words in lines 9 and 10 of page 8, where a duty is placed upon the local education authority of consulting the managers or governors, or persons representing the managers or governors of all schools other than county schools. Under a Measure sent up by the Church Assembly and agreed to by this House last year, diocesan education committees were established in every diocese of the Church of England. Reading the Bill, I have little doubt that it was to bring in those committees that the words:
Or persons representing the managers or governors.
were introduced in lines 9 and 10. However, the Bill as it stands imposes no direct duty on local education authorities to consult diocesan education committees in every case. It would certainly be to everybody's advantage that that direct consultation should take place, because at some stage or other the diocesan education committee must be brought in, and the earlier they are brought in the better it will be for them, for the managers or governors, and for the local education authority, which will be able to obtain the committee's view. It is solely because a local education authority which might not be fully aware of the advantage of consulting the committee at an early stage might fail to do so, that I move this Amendment, in order to make certain that that consultation with the committees will actually take place.

Mr. Butler: The Government are in sympathy with the principle enunciated by the hon. Gentleman that there should be consultation with the diocesan education committees. For one thing, we very much


approve of what I may describe as the rationalisation of church organisation and finance, without which some of the association between the Government and the local authorities and the church schools would not be so easily carried out. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that we sympathise very much with the recent Measure passed through the Assembly of the Church of England—the Diocesan Education Committees Measure. Section 2 of that Measure includes the following provision:
To promote and co-operate with other religious bodies and with local education authorities in promoting religious education within the diocese.
That is paragraph (iii); paragraph (iv) of the same Section says:
To give advice as and when the Committee thinks fit to trustees or owners and managers of church schools and others concerned as to any matters affecting church schools within the diocese.
The difficulty we have with the terms of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that it looks as if it were possible, under the Amendment as drafted, to conduct relations direct with the diocesan education committees, over the heads of the managers or governors. That we do not think is the proper relationship if the managers and governors do not choose that such a relationship should exist. The Bill is drafted so that, in the first place, there shall be direct contact with the managers and governors, and, if they choose, with the diocesan committees. This is a complicated matter. To understand it fully Members would need a complete knowledge of the Diocesan Committees Measure, as well as a complete knowledge of this Bill. It is difficult enough to have a complete knowledge of this Bill; to have a complete knowledge of the Diocesan Committees Measure as well would be very difficult indeed. Therefore, I suggest that my hon. Friend should not press his Amendment to-day. I will take his point that this is merely permissive, and accept the principle in that spirit. But to accept the Amendment—

Mr. A. Bevan: It is not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to consult both the managers and the diocesan authorities, but just one or the other?

Mr. Butler: I hope the hon. Member will feel satisfied that we are dealing with

the diocesan committee in individual circumstances, and not seeking to over-ride them in any shape or form.

Mr. Silverman: Does that include a provision that discussion with the diocesan authorities shall not take place except where the diocesan council takes financial responsibility for the school which is involved in the consultation? I hope the Committee will not mind my saying so, but I had a professional experience once which has left the deepest impression on my mind. I once acted for certain persons who were injured in an accident, in which some people were killed, in a Church of England school in Liverpool. There were 142 persons crowded together in this school at some exhibition. The floor collapsed and they were precipitated on to a floor below. Some were killed and some injured, some seriously and permanently injured. In that case, the owners of the school were the council—I do not want to go into details now—and there was a trust deed which provided that that council were, and should always be deemed to be, in occupation of that school. The council had accepted that position of legal occupiers, and had insured themselves against the liabilities of occupiers, but when remedies were sought in the courts the council said that this was nothing to do with them, that the duty of keeping the school in repair—and it was admitted that it had not been kept in repair, and that there had been no proper inspection for years—did not lie with them. They said, "We are the owners, we are the occupiers under the trustees, but the Statute lays the duty only upon the managers, and therefore the financial liability lies upon the managers, and your action can only be against the managers, but, unfortunately, the managers have no money." In the end, the Education Council actually sold the school for £2,000 and put the money in its pocket.

Major Woolley: Can the hon. Member specify what he means by "Council?" Is it the local council?

Mr. Silverman: No, no. Perhaps I had better say—I did not want to give the name—that there was a body called the Liverpool Church of England School Society, which had a general committee, and this general committee were the


trustees and owners, and, by the deeds, the occupiers, but they shuffled out of all responsibility, and in the course of the litigation actually sold the buildings for £2,000 to the Liverpool City Council and put the money in their own pockets, and the rest of the liability fell on the penniless shoulders of the others. Eventually the Council had no responsibility at all. If Councils of this kind are going to claim the privilege of being consulted, then they should take full responsibility for schools about which they wish to be consulted, and I would like to hear if the Minister accepts that view.

Mr. Butler: My difficulty is in reconciling the two Measures, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to look at his Amendment again because it says:
the Diocesan Education Committee shall for the purpose of this sub-section, be deemed to be the managers or governors as well as the actual managers or governors of a school.
That is not our reading of the Diocesan Education Committee Measure, 1943, which, in Section 2 (2) simply provides that
the trustees or owners and managers of every Church school in a diocese shall be bound to consult the Committee and to have regard to its representations in any negotiations for and before making any agreement or arrangement with the Board of Education. … or the local education authority for or with respect to the restoration, rearrangement, continuance, discontinuance, closing, sale or lease of, or other dealing with such Church school, or for or with respect to the amalgamation thereof with any other school.
If that is to be the view of the Diocesan Education Committee Measure it is different from the Amendment on the Paper, which says that trustees and managers shall be deemed to be one and the same thing. I do not think the Government should advise this Committee so to legislate until we are satisfied by the movers of the Amendment that the terms of the Diocesan Committee Measure and of the Amendment are the same. If the hon. Member will not press it to-day, I think it is desirable to have more information.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment if it merely asks that the Diocesan Education Committee shall be consulted as a whole?

Mr. Butler: I should want to see the terms of the Amendment, but I first of

all want to have the assurance that there is no desire to supplant the managers of schools, because the Amendment has given that impression. When we are clear on what they desire I can give my answer.

Mr. Silverman: Surely it is important to know, when considering these matters, whether the council which is to be consulted is going to be discharged and have no responsibility for the statutory obligations of managers? Surely, that is the point.

Mr. Brooke: I could not answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) without going far beyond the terms of the Amendment, which refers to Diocesan Education Committees. It does not refer to a Liverpool school council or any other form of Church or other society.

Mr. Silverman: It is the same thing.

Mr. Brooke: With great respect, it is not the same thing. These are bodies brought into statutory existence by the Church Assembly and this House within the past 12 months. I would certainly like to respond to the spirit in which the Minister has replied to my Amendment. We do not wish in any way to supplant the managers or governors of any of these schools. What we do wish to ensure is that there will be consultation with both the managers or governors and the Diocesan Education Committee, and perhaps it will be possible, in further consultation, to work out a form of words which might achieve that agreed object.

Mr. A. Bevan: That is precisely what we do not want. That is the situation. What justification is there for the consultation with the Diocesan Council at all? We have already been told they have been in existence for over a year and they are not a repository of any great educational experience in their own rights. They may have members with educational experience, but as bodies they have none. Why should the Minister have his negotiations cluttered up by having to consult not only the managers but this other extraneous body, whose functions are entirely denominational? We have been told that it would be unwise to consult a very large number of elected bodies—local councils—because there are so many of them. We are now saying—and I am suspicious of the Clause—that in addition to consulting


the managers or the governors of all local schools, which are now going to be mostly controlled schools, for which we will be entirely responsible financially, the Minister ought to consult another body outside these. What for? I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the use of the words "or persons representing the managers" could be interpreted as substituting the Diocesan Council for the managers or governors. Do we understand that? If that is to be the case, some of us will have to take serious exception to it, because we see no reason at all why the Diocesan Council should be consulted in a development scheme of this sort—a non-elected body. I should like a little more specific clarification. If the hon. Member will press his Amendment, we will divide on it—or at least I will—on the grounds of this purely extraneous body. It would be unwise to divide this Committee on any educational matter; but if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman says that his meaning of the term is that managers and governors can be set on one side and the diocesan body established, I should also be suspicious of that, for I see no reason at all why that body should come into the picture at any stage.

Mr. Brooke: I have said once and say again that there is no desire by the movers of the Amendment to supplant managers or governors or deprive them of any of their rights. I rather think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) should have raised his point on the Diocesan Education Committee Measure in the last Session and not on this Bill. But if I have the good will of the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, to leave out from "made," to "necessary," in line 27, and to insert:
by any person to whom particlars or further.
I understand it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and other hon. Members, we considered the Amendment in my name and that of other Members, in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," to insert:
(if such objections are so made not later than three months after the date or latest date on which such particulars or further particulars were received by that person).

and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon)—in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," insert:
(if such objections are so made not later than three months after the date or latest date on which such particulars or further particulars were received by that person).
Under Sub-section (3) of Clause 10, to which I refer hon. Members, the local education authority has to consult the managers or governors of schools, and after submitting the plan to the Minister, has to furnish to the managers or governors sufficient particulars to show the manner in which the school will be affected by the execution of the plan. If the Minister is of opinion that no particulars, or insufficient particulars, of the plan have been furnished to any person who, in his opinion, would be affected by the execution of the plan, he is to give such directions as he considers expedient for securing that sufficient particulars are so furnished.
Under the provisions of Sub-section (3), I understand there are three classes of persons to be considered. First, there are the managers or governors who have received particulars which the Minister may consider sufficient; but there is another class—those managers or governors who have received particulars which the Minister may consider to be insufficient and to whom he directs that further particulars shall be furnished. There is a third party to be considered—that is, any person affected by the execution of the plan who has received no particulars and to whom the Minister requires particulars to be furnished. There are thus three separate parties to be considered by the Minister before his decision is given. If hon. Members will refer to Sub-section (4) they will find that it provides for consideration by the Minister of
any objections to a development plan made to him within the period of two months after the date on which he is satisfied that all necessary particulars have been furnished in accordance with the last foregoing Sub-section.
The position is a little complicated and I must apologise, but in the view of my hon. Friends who put their names to this Amendment there is no requirement as to publication of notice of the day on which the Minister is actually so satisfied, and any person to whom particulars are


furnished pursuant to Sub-section (3) would have no means of knowing whether the Minister was or was not satisfied that the local education authority have done all that needed to be done or as to the date on which the Minister may be so satisfied. Moreover, the particulars or further particulars will have to be furnished to a large number of persons and it would appear to us that any individual persons would take it that the time for lodging objection would begin to run from the date on which the Minister is satisfied that in all cases the necessary particulars have been furnished. This would add to the difficulty of any intending objector in ascertaining the actual time when he must lodge his objection to the scheme.
It will be noted that the time for lodging objections is "within a period of two months." This would mean that any objections made either before or after the expiration of that period need not be taken into account by my right hon. Friend. The object of the Amendments on the Order Paper is to secure that, in the case of each person to whom particulars or further particulars are furnished under Sub-section (3) of the Clause, the time for lodging objections shall run from the date or latest date of the receipt by the Minister of the particulars or further particulars. I submit therefore that this is the only practicable way that the Minister would have of ensuring that persons affected shall have an adequate opportunity of submitting objections to a development plan. The period of two months for the making of objections we consider to be insufficient and, in a similar case, under Sub-section (3) of Clause 12, the period of three months is allowed for the submission of objections. The Amendments which I am now moving accordingly provide for the lodging of objections within three months.

Sir J. Lamb: Will this preclude the calling of the Amendment which stands in my name—in line 29,—after "sub-section," insert "and after consulting the local education authority"?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have safeguarded that Amendment.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Colonel Evans). It

is most important that the date on which the Minister has satisfied himself should be made very clear to all concerned. That is not clear from the Clause, and neither is the date from which the two months should run. Even if the date were clear, we submit that two months is insufficient time and that the period for lodgment should be extended to three months. We have heard all sorts of suggestions as to improvements which ought to be made in the Bill with which we are in hearty agreement, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it would be unfair to the managers and governors of schools if insistence was made on provisions which they could not provide, and they found themselves without time to produce or lodge their objection. We do not insist that these words should be part of the Clause but we ask the President of the Board of Education and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider our point of view between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Colonel Evans) said that this was a very complicated matter. It is and I congratulate him upon the clarity with which he managed to move his Amendment. It deals with the situation that will arise when the managers or governors know the requirements that will be placed upon them. They will then have a period of time within which to decide whether they are going to say that they are reasonable requirements and they intend to carry them out, or whether they are going to lodge an objection upon any ground that may be open to them. On the question of time, I do not think that the period of two months should be regarded as being too short. These are schools which have been in their possession for a considerable time, They have probably a pretty good idea before things start as to what they ought to do, and one knows that in most cases the surveying of the school by the local education authority and the consideration of what ought to be asked for will be carried out in consultation, not necessarily formally, but informally, with the representatives of the managers or governors.
We are anxious, as the Committee has shown on this Clause and the previous one, to get on with the job of bringing these schools into a fit state of repair and


I hope that the Committee will feel that, in these circumstances, the period of two months is a sufficiently long time. With regard to the other point as to the date from which the two months' period is to run, undoubtedly, it is very desirable that the managers or governors or anyone else concerned with the matter should know the date from which their period of making an objection runs. I should have thought that the words in the Clause made it clear that it would have to be some disclosure of knowledge on their part that would enable my right hon. Friend to be satisfied that all necessary particulars had been furnished. We are advised that managers or governors are amply protected by the words in the Clause but I respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Undoubtedly, this is complicated and we do not desire that anybody should be cut out through not having the knowledge. We do not want anyone to get into difficulties inadvertently. We do not desire that anybody should be able by some manoeuvring to prevent managers from lodging their objections in time, and we will examine the words to see if the exact date on which the furnishing of the particulars has taken place and from which the opportunity for notices will be given can be made more clear.

Mr. Stokes: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South, will be grateful but we want to be clear that the people entitled to receive notice of the alteration or improvements in the Order shall have sufficient time. It is not sufficient that they should know that the Minister was satisfied. They might only know that he was satisfied a month after he had become satisfied. We want to be sure that the people responsible shall have ample time to lodge objections within the dates authorising them.

Mr. Ede: We desire that they should have two months from some given date during which they can consider whether they are going to lodge an objection or not. That is what we intend them to have and I hope that the Committee will feel that a two months' period is long enough. If there is difficulty when we look further into the words in making that date absolutely certain, we will endeavour to meet them.

Colonel Evans: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has met our real

anxiety and we are most grateful for the manner in which he has approached the proposal, and in view of his assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, after "Sub-section," to insert, "and after consulting the local education authority."

Mr. Butler: On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Can we discuss this Amendment with that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster)—on page 8, line 30, after "as," to insert "after consultation with the local education authority."—as they cover the same point?

Sir J. Lamb: I wish to put the position briefly because I want to expedite the progress of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will accept my Amendment, though I have not high hopes that that will be done. There is no obligation here upon the Minister to consult local education authorities with regard to objections he has received. We think—and I am speaking for the county education authorities—that it is desirable that there should be an obligation under the Bill for him to notify the local education authority of the objections and to consult them with regard to the objections which have been received. It would lead to better administration if this were done. The Minister may say that he would naturally do this in the course of his administration, but we think that it would be better to make provision in the Bill for the obligation to be placed upon the Minister to bring about consultation.

Sir G. Schuster: I hope that I shall be allowed to move my Amendment as it stands. It covers the same point as the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) but it makes the Bill better English and it is much better grammar. My hon. Friend is able to get in ahead of me by having put his Amendment down two lines further up in the Bill, but I would put it to the Committee that my Amendment really does make a much better Clause. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, or to take up much time on this, but I think it is the most reasonable Amendment which has been moved on the Bill. I want to sup-


plement in one respect what my hon. Friend said. He mentioned that the local authority ought to be consulted about objections received. I put it rather in another way. I hope that the Minister will not modify the plan of the local authority and give directions to the local authority to override their original plan without giving the local authority the chance of stating their position practically without consulting them. May I then be allowed to move my Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman: The time for that has not come, and I am afraid that it will not come at all.

Mr. Ede: I do not want to prove you an untrue prophet, Sir Charles, but we prefer the Amendment, where it is proposed to be made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) rather than in the place suggested by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). The two Amendments have practically the same effect but the change fits into the drafting of the Bill better in the second case than in the first. While we accept the spirit of the Amendment, we should prefer that it should be in the place where it has been put down by the hon. Member for Walsall.

Sir J. Lamb: I am prepared to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member fox Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). It is the object of my Amendment that I want, and if it is more likely to be accepted by the Minister at the place indicated I shall be ready to ask leave to withdraw my own Amendment if I can be assured by my hon. Friend that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will be allowed to be moved.

The Temporary Chairman: I am in the position of not being able to select Amendments.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I submit that you have not been asked to select an Amendment, Sir Charles- If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) asks leave to withdraw his Amendment, surely you will be entitled to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster).

Sir J. Lamb: I want to be assured of that.

The Temporary Chairman: That could have been done, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) had been selected, but that is my difficulty.

Mr. Barnes: Could it not be settled if the Government agreed to make the Amendment on the Report stage?

The Temporary Chairman: I will call the Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: On your assurance, Sir Charles, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall will be called, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 30, after "as," insert "after consultation with the local education authority."—(Sir G. Schuster.)

Colonel Evans: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Provided that—

(a) before approving a development plan the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, notice of the proposal to give such approval and of the place where copies of the plan as proposed to be approved may be obtained, and of the time (which shall not be less than twenty-one days) within which any objection made with respect to such plan by or on behalf of persons affected must be sent to him;
(b) the Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to him to be affected which sent to him within the required time and, unless all such objections are withdrawn, shall cause a local enquiry to be held in accordance with section eighty-six of this Act."

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that, before a development plan to which objections have been lodged is approved by the Minister he shall exercise his powers under Clause 86 and hold a local inquiry unless all objections are withdrawn. My hon. Friend and I who have put their names to this Amendment submit that the formulation of the development plan is of such vital importance that the fullest possible inquiry should be held before such a plan is approved.

Mr. Stokes: I want to say a few words in support of the Amendment, the object of which, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, is to give people a proper opportunity of taking action. We want to


secure proper publication regarding the development plan. It is suggested in the Amendment that the "London Gazette" is the proper means of giving this publicity. I am not sufficiently well informed to know whether that is the best means or not, but manifestly, when managers are concerned with schools that they have to administer and which may be taken away from them as a result of not being able to carry out the plan, they should have full and proper notice of the intentions regarding the plan. Equally, it is important that the Minister himself should exercise his powers under the Act to hold a full inquiry if the objections which may be made from time to time to such plan have not been satisfactorily cleared up. I would refer to what I have said already on a previous Amendment with regard to the possibilities of this matter—that everybody is desirous of having the maximum amount of development. We have heard talk of large playing-fields to be provided for everybody; we have heard talk of canteens for everybody, wireless sets, and goodness knows what. That is all splendid, but if the development plan is to include all that, and the managers of the schools have not the wherewithal to provide it, surely they are entitled, before being shut up, to be sure that the Minister means to hold a proper inquiry into objections to the plan?
I know this is not the proper place to discuss finance, and I am not going to do it, but the reason why we are anxious to get inserted in the Bill provision for a public inquiry, if proper objections have not been satisfactorily met, is in order to safeguard ourselves against being required to do something which, under the provisions of the Bill, we are entirely unable to do from an economic point-of-view. There may be other objections as well, but all I am claiming—while not in the least wishing to obstruct any development scheme of any kind whatever—is to see to it that the schools are not closed down without having any objections properly ventilated in a public inquiry, and full opportunity given so that the managers and their representatives may turn up at such inquiry, state their case, and have it fully and properly held by the Minister under the powers given to him in Clause 86. I hope that if, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Education and of the Committee, I have

made my case, the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to find some way of meeting this.

Major Mills: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out "and" and to insert "or."
The only doubt I have is whether the people interested will read the "London Gazette" and I should prefer to see "and" altered to "or," in the Amendment, so as to give the President of the Board of Education the chance of doing what he thinks best.

Mr. Loftus: I would support what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said. I do not like the words of the Amendment as they stand and especially "London Gazette." Surely the proper course is to insert the word "or," and to advertise in local papers so as to get the utmost local publicity.

Mr. Gallacher: It may be necessary to have an Amendment but I would ask the Minister to consider very carefully any such Amendment. In connection with the publication, if the Amendment is accepted, the proper medium of publication would be the "Daily Worker," but the important thing about this Amendment is that it visualises conflict—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Member realise that we are discussing an Amendment to the Amendment—to leave out, "and," and to insert, "or"?

Mr. Gallacher: I thought we were discussing the Amendment as a whole.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

Mr. Gallacher: This Amendment visualises conflict—

Colonel Evans: May I remind the hon. Member that under Clause 86 the Minister is bound to hold an inquiry? All this Amendment is seeking to do is to insist on the holding of a local inquiry unless all the objections are withdrawn.

Mr. Gallaeher: I understand, but the fact is that if the White Paper and the


Bill are to be carried out, in the sense that the House and the country desire, it will call for the maximum co-operation between the Minister and the various authorities responsible for the carrying on of education, whether they are county or denominational schools. Hon. Members who are moving this Amendment will agree with me that the greatest possible value for denominational schools, as well as for county schools, will come from the maximum measure of co-operation. That is why I want the Minister not to accept such an Amendment light-heartedly, but to consider carefully what he is doing, in the light of the absolute necessity for getting the best results from the Bill, of getting the maximum co-operation, and avoiding at all cost conflict between the different authorities in connection with the carrying out of this scheme.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I sincerely hope that the Minister will not accede to the second part of this Amendment. It is designed not only to cause friction, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, but it will operate automatically to cause considerable delay in bringing the plan into operation. Reference has been made to Clause 86 which gives the Minister power to direct a local inquiry if he thinks fit to do so. Clause 86 says be may, but the Amendment now moved, places it within the power of a sectional interest, organised in different parts of this country, automatically, without any question of distinction, without any question of ascertaining what the weight of the objection is, without ascertaining whether it is material or considerable, to insist that if an objection is lodged, the Minister must direct an inquiry to be held. That could be staged quite easily by an energetic, sectional interest in a great many parts of this country at the same time.

Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt? The hon. and learned Member is not stating at all correctly what my hon. and gallant Friend and I said. We said that if any objection has not been withdrawn—not if any objection is merely lodged. The President may be able to satisfy those objections and with the co-operation he hopes to have, he should be able to do so.

Mr. Huģhes: May I remind the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) of the terms of his own Amendment?
(b) The Minister shall consider any objection made by or on behalf of any persons appearing to him to be affected which is sent to him within the required time and, unless all such objections are withdrawn, shall cause a local inquiry to be held in accordance with Section 86 of this Act.
In other words, they would be able to say to the Minister, "If you do not agree to every word of objection that we put before you, we shall not be satisfied, and we will compel you to hold a local inquiry." That will not come from just one area. The interests represented in different sections of this Committee will take very good care to see that it is not one objection that will be on the Minister's plate but a couple of hundred, and they will all say, "You give way to this objection, or 200 local inquiries"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, No."] That is what will happen if this Amendment is accepted. I have some experience of inquiries held by Government Departments into matters affecting local administration, and I know that it takes time to get an appropriate inspector from the Ministry to conduct the inquiry. It takes time to find an appropriate place at which the inquiry is to be held; it takes time to see that all the persons who are properly interested in the inquiry are given notice to be there, and they again will produce further delay because they will say, "Wait a minute, you cannot hold the inquiry next month or the month after. We must instruct counsel, we must be adequately briefed and represented." The procedure, it this were conceded, might hang up the whole of the operations of the scheme for obtaining the development plan to get on with the job which this Bill envisages. For those cogent reasons, I hope that the Minister will reject this Amendment.

Mr. Coleģate: I have very great sympathy indeed with this Amendment and I did not follow the hon. and learned Member's arguments against it. It is quite clear that in a Bill of this kind there are many of what the hon. and learned Member calls sectional interests, although I think he refers to them as denominational when he speaks of his own.

Mr. Huģhes: I have never in the course of the discussions on this Bill argued once for my own denomination. I have argued for Protestants, Nonconformists, council


schools and public schools in general, but never once have I uttered a word here in favour of my own denomination, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists.

Mr. Coleģate: I have my own opinion upon that, but it is quite clear that a number of interests are affected very cogently and very directly, and I think the Committee should make every effort to meet any of those objections which can be met without upsetting the whole scheme. Here is an opportunity where we can meet what are obviously the very sincere feelings of a certain section of the community, without doing any harm to the main intentions of the Bill, and I therefore support it. You do not get rid of friction by slurring it over in the preliminary stages. If you are to have friction, you had much better have it out, than prevent people bringing up their real objections by refusing them the facility for inquiry and then afterwards saying, "Let us hope for the best and that they mill forget about it." That is not the way to make a sound scheme; the way is to give everyone an opportunity of airing their opinions in so far as they have a legitimate locus standi and then trying to meet their objections.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear that the Minister will not be desirous of creating feeling amongst any section in connection with this matter, and will be willing to meet them to the utmost possible limit, and is it not better that that spirit should prevail?

Mr. Coleģate: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting this Amendment, because that is the very point. The movers of the Amendment have provided that all such objections being withdrawn then the proposed inquiry shall not be held. We are told that there should be ample time for inquiries to be held but you will find that this provision would be used only in cases where there is strong local feeling or strong religious opinion and I think it will be the exception rather than the rule.

Mr. Butler: If the situation were as simple as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) has made out, I might find it easier to meet my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment. But let us face the facts of the situation. We all want aggrieved persons to have a

chance of stating their views and we all want inquiries to be held whenever there is an injustice but this is a question to do with the submission by an authority of a development plan. It is quite clear that in this matter the less delay we have the better. The sense of the Committee has been in favour of speeding up the submission of development plans and if we were to adopt the Amendment in the terms as drawn on the Order Paper we should throw into our education administrative system cause for indefinite delay. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) who, with great modesty and wisdom refrained from representing his own religious views, pointed out that this might lead to certain troubles and that it might be in the best interests of the movers of the Amendment if we accepted it in the terms on the Order Paper. I think the movers of the Amendment are mixing two things. This development plan refers only to the layout of existing schools within the authority's area. When we come to Clause 12, which deals with the establishment and discontinuance of county and auxiliary schools, there is full provision laid down in Sub-section (3) for objections to be made and when it comes to a new school or the discontinuance of an auxiliary school there is elaborate machinery under which to local government electors can object to the proposals. On the matters where they are likely to be affected the Bill is wide and democratic in the sense they desire.
Let us go back to the development plan on the existing schools. If this were to be published in the "London Gazette," even supposing I accepted the words, "and or," or "or and," I do not think it would give great satisfaction. Let us take an area in Wales, such as that represented by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen. I do not think the citizens of that district would feel particularly excited if they had this published in the "London Gazette" or the Press generally. What they want is that the people they understand and know should be happy about the layout which the authorities suggest for their area. If Members will look at this Clause they will see that there are elaborate provisions under which a local education authority, before submitting the plan to the Minister, must consult with all the small educational units involved, such as the managers or governors of the different schools. In


my opinion, it is through their own local representatives that those who support the Movers of this Amendment will find their salvation. If there is adequate machinery for consultation with all those engaged in the conduct of school administration that will be sufficient, rather than resorting to the ambitious and dilatory method suggested in the Amendment. If you differentiate between a development plan for existing schools and an elaborate plan for new schools those who moved the Amendment are fully covered. But if, on the other hand, you stick to the layout of administration, to accept an Amendment as elaborate as this would not be appropriate and would slow up things enormously. The Government will examine this matter with a view to seeing whether we can do anything but I cannot accept the Amendment in the rather broad terms in which it has been drawn, although I well understand the motives of the hon. Members who have supported it.

Mr. Stokes: We are, naturally, in some difficulty at this stage of the Bill but if the Minister can assure us now that he will endeavour to cover our main fear, namely, that some arbitrary local authority, without consultation with the governors of schools, will insist on certain developments and improvements in a school which the governors are totally unable to provide, then I think OUT fears would be met. We want to provide for the persons who have, hitherto, run their schools very well, although perhaps not so up to date as they should have been. We want the closest possible co-operation. [Laughter.] Well, it is the Minister who wants to continue the dual system, not we. We do not want the dual system. All we want is that the State should provide schools with Catholic teachers.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we can have a discussion on the dual system.

Mr. Stokes: I was only answering the imputation by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) about our lack of co-operation. I was trying to make it clear that we wanted the maximum co-operation. We want to have the best for our children. We do not want to have schools arbitrarily closed. We want the fullest inquiry of there is anything which cannot be carried out because of the financial burden.

Mr. Butler: I think the answer to the hon. Member is to be found in Clause 64. If there is a dispute on a matter between managers or governors and an authority it automatically comes to the Minister for determination. However, I would rather like to look into the matter from that angle than from the elaborate manner in which it has been suggested.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henry Brooke: There are two points that I would like to mention in connection with this Clause, which is of key importance to the future layout of primary and secondary education in this country. This Clause makes 1st April, 1946, a crucial date. That is the date before which every local education authority has to make up its mind how its schools are to be arranged for primary and secondary education. I hope the Minister will make sure, if he is setting up any further Committees or securing any further authoritative reports from independent bodies, that they will be submitted and published well before that date, and not shortly afterwards, because it would throw this work into chaos if reports and recommendations of the greatest significance for education were published and were to become available shortly after instead of well before that important date-1st April, 1946. We had an interesting Debate at an earlier stage of the Bill on rural education, when it was obvious that the Committee wished local education authorities to give careful attention to the most modern and enlightened views as to the manner in which education in rural areas should be organised in future. I do not know whether that is one of the subjects which the Minister intends to refer to his new Advisory Councils. Personally, I hope it will be. But if he is setting on foot any new inquiry of that sort, will he make sure that the findings are available before the date when local education authorities have to submit their development plans? It will be disastrous if all plans have to be reconsidered in the light of new and important findings which are published shortly afterwards.
My second point concerns consultation. I am sure the Committee wishes that all consultation carried out under this Bill should be constructive, and not merely


formal so as to comply with the Statute. I had an Amendment on this point which was not called. It is not that I want to insist on the Government altering the actual words of the Bill, but where, for instance, local education authorities are required under this Clause to consult managers or governors of auxiliary schools there are two ways in which that consultation can be carried out. They can either take the managers and governors into their confidence at the beginning of the preparation of their development plan and invite their views at the first possible moment, or, in a conceivable case where a narrow-minded local education authority had perhaps had some quarrel with those interested in religious education in the area, the authority might claim that it was complying with the Statute by writing a week or two before the last possible date and saying "Here is our development plan. This is Monday. Please let us have your comments by Wednesday, because the Statute requires that the plans shall be submitted to the Minister by Thursday." That would not be the consultation which this Committee desires. I had hoped that it might be possible to alter the terms of the Bill to secure that the consultation was genuine, but now I would ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to make certain that the consultation required by this Bill is carried out in a way that is truly constructive.

Mr. Lindsay: One thing which, I have been told outside, is causing great consternation is the shortage of local authority staffs. Could I get some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power not only to maintain their present staffs but, if necessary, to get back further staff so that their plans may be carried through?

Mr. Huģhes: There is one point on which I should like some assurance. This is the Clause which lays out the scheme described as the blue print of the educational future. When you have that, there will be contained in it an outline of the new secondary system that we envisage—the new system of secondary schools of three types. It has been emphasised from the earliest day on which the White Paper was discussed that it is necessary that these three types of school shall be created on the same level, so that

no child who goes to a technical secondary school will feel in any way inferior to a child who goes to a secondary grammar or modern school. They must be equated. Sub-section (2) lays down that the nature of the education and the ages of the pupils shall be provided as part of the general plan. Surely, in order to equate these three types of secondary school it is essential that somewhere or other, either specifically in the plan or by directions that the Minister may give before he approves it, specific provision should be made governing the conditions of admission of pupils to these schools. Otherwise we shall find schools of the old grammar school type hand selecting and being maintained at a level consistently higher than the technical and modern school. I should like an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that in these plans for the future there is control not only as to the education to be provided and the ages of the pupils to be taught but as to the conditions governing admission to the schools.

Earl Winterton: I should like to take up one point which has been made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I am slightly concerned at the pressure that exists on all sorts of Ministers to release staff for certain purposes. No one can tell what the manpower position will be in 1945. It may be a question not of releasing staff but of calling up more for the Forces.

Mr. Lindsay: I only mentioned it because I think it is very bad for the country to let it go out that we can do a great many things that we cannot do. I am aware of the great pressure that is going to be put on the staffs.

Mr. Gallacher: The important thing in connection with the consultations referred to in the Clause is that those who may have objections arising out of the Clause should feel satisfied that the Minister is ready to meet them. The measure of co-operation which will be absolutely essential will depend to a very great extent on how the Minister carries out the obligations that arise under the Clause. If the necessary sympathetic attention is given to objections that are felt, there will be no need in my opinion for any friction during the course of the operation of the Bill or of this Clause.

Mr. Stokes: I should like to say a few words in support of the views expressed


by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). I hope the Minister will seriously consider the representations that have been made with regard to proper consultation. We feel that, if there is an opportunity for the ventilation of all grievances, the objections which we have to the Clause as it stands will be removed. I should like to tell the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) that this is not a blue print at all, It is a sketch.

The Deputy-Chairman: And this is a Clause.

Mr. Stokes: It is most regrettable that in a Debate on education we should use the expression "blue print" in its wrongful meaning. It is wrongfully used all over the world.

The Deputy-Chairman: I intended to explain shortly that the hon. Member must not talk about blue prints.

Mr. Stokes: I have been trying to get this off my chest for years and, as the opportunity even now is not favourable, I will sit down.

Mr. Butler: I think the Committee is to be congratulated on having concluded the discussion of one of the most important Clauses of the Bill in a most businesslike manner, and I am obliged for the progress that we have been able to make. The Committee has taken part in the deliberations in a constructive manner and I hope it may now be possible to get the Clause and make a little more progress. I accept the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Brooke) spoke, and he was supported by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I think it is most important that the consultation should take place in the same spirit of co-operation that these three hon. Members have shown in associating themselves with the Amendment. We are seeing so happy a spirit of co-operation that I hope it will be reflected not only in the country generally but in the local authorities' areas as well. We are indeed setting an example to the world of education.
The points raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl

Winterton) were very well worth making. At present local authorities are working on a very bare minimum. We hope the time will come when they will able to enlarge their staffs by the inclusion of those whose minds and ideas are refreshed by the experiences through which they have been passing, but that will take time and therefore, though the Government wish to press ahead as fast as they can with these development plans—and we have resisted any Amendment likely to delay the Bill in any way—it must be realised under what a severe strain some of these authorities are working. That is why I have not always been able to give as much information and statistics as I should desire. Local authorities have made one of the biggest drives that have been made recently in war time—I refer to the milk and meals scheme particularly—with reduced staffs and, when we come to constitutional development, I am sure they will show the same vision as they have shown in war time. The question of secondary education will be included in this development plan. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen is interested in the question of entry to the secondary schools, a subject of burning interest which will arise on Clause 16. Apart from that particular issue, I assure him that there will be in these plans the plan that authorities have of the new secondary world. It is in that new secondary world and the new primary world, too—because by an Amendment the Committee has accepted to this Clause the range of primary education is now to be set before us in its various types—that we will see the whole range of peaks of opportunity which this Bill provides.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Local education orders with respect to primary and secondary education.)

Mr. Bartle Bull: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, after "which," to insert, "and to any local authority who."
There are a number of other names above mine to this Amendment, and I cannot understand why those hon. Members are absent, except it be that the Government propose to accept the Amendment. I have heard a lot of Members say to-day that they do not wish to hold up the Bill,


but still they speak at great length. I do not propose to do that. If my hon. Friends whose names appear to this Amendment above mine and I can understand something of what the Amendment means, I think that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary can equally well understand it. The Parliamentary Secretary said a little time ago that he did not accept an Amendment moved by one hon. Gentleman but that he would accept another one. If he will accept this or the next Amendment in my name I shall be grateful.

Mr. Ede: I regret that we are not able to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved. It covers a wide range of authorities because, in addition to the county district councils, whose numbers I enumerated on a previous Amendment, it includes every parish council in the country. We are sincerely desirous of affording the localities an opportunity of making their views known and we will consider whether it can properly, be done on the First Schedule. If not, we will endeavour on the next stage of the Bill to submit words that will ensure that the appropriate bodies in the localities shall be in a position to express views with relation to this Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: Before we leave this Amendment, I should say that the next Amendment, in line 31, after "proprietor," insert "or by such local authority," can be discussed with it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would like to ask the Government if they will accept the second Amendment. We shall have to deal with them separately, but they can be discussed together.

Mr. Bull: I will ask the Government whether they will accept that Amendment.

Mr. Ede: The answer on the second Amendment is the same as on the first.

Mr. Bull: In view of that satisfactory assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, at the end, to add:
(3) If a local education authority inform the Minister that they are aggrieved by an order or by an amendment of an order made

under this Section the order or amendment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order or amendment is laid before it resolves that the order or amendment be annulled the order or amendment shall cease to have effect but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order or amendment.
In reckoning any such period of forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that where a local education authority is dissatisfied with the local education order or an amendment of an order which has been made by the Minister, and expresses that dissatisfaction to the Minister, the Minister will lay the order before Parliament, and if either House so resolves the order or the amendment shall be annulled. This Clause enables the Minister, by a local education order, to give effect to a plan which he has approved under the preceding Clause. Under that Clause the Minister can approve a plan after making such modifications as he considers necessary or expedient. Under this Clause he can, having given effect to a plan by a local education order, proceed to alter the plan by an amendment to the order. In each case he has to consider objections made by the local education authority, but he has complete and absolute power to make any alterations in the plan, either before or after making a local education order. In these circumstances, as his powers are dictatorial, it is only right that there should be an appeal to Parliament in cases where the local education authority is dissatisfied with the changes he has made in the plan. The Minister has, with respect to many previous Amendments, raised objections that they would involve delay and that he desires that unnecessary delay shall be avoided. This proposal would not involve any delay unless one or other of the two Houses of Parliament considered that the chances in the plan were undesirable. In those circumstances the delay would prove to be justified.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment in the most convincing style. We have had to resist every other Amendment that has been moved by his group of Members, but in


view of the way in which this has been moved, my right hon. Friend has been moved and I am instructed to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Establishment and discontinuance of county and auxiliary schools.)

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, at the end, to insert:
otherwise than in pursuance of a development plan submitted under the provisions of section ten of this Act.
This is a somewhat complicated Amendment. I want to remind the Committee of what has been passed in Clause 10. That has been described as the framework of the new educational system and it was implied by the Minister that it is of a rather general character. If we examine the Clause, however, we find that it is not quite as general as that. I am not going to roam over all the types of school included in it. I will take only the one example of the additional school. It says in Clause 10 (2, c) that the plan shall—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do hope that we shall not get back to Clause 10.

Mr. Huģhes: I am afraid that, in connection with this argument, I shall have to do so, because I am seeking to demonstrate to the Committee, and I hope to the satisfaction of the Minister, that in Clause 12 we are duplicating the work that Clause 10 has provided shall be done.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not remember the point which the hon. and learned Member says this Clause would duplicate, but if that is his argument, it is in Order.

Mr. Huģhes: Clause 10 provides that there must be set out in the development plan particulars as to additional schools. It is not general, because, as hon. Members will see from Sub-section (3), it is the duty of the local education authority to consult the managers and governors of schools affected. It is quite patent that unless the plan provides for a county school in a particular place, it will be impossible for the authority to know what existing schools are affected and what managers or governors shall be informed. Clearly, therefore, for the purpose of a development plan, a new additional

county school must be something specific. If we go back to Sub-section 2 (a) we find that it is even more specific; because the plan has to say exactly the type of education that is being provided there. As laid down by Clause 10, the development plan will have to provide an additional county school of a particular type, supplying a particular kind of education. That is perfectly plain.
Having the matter before them in the plan, the authority will have to consult the managers of all schools affected and consider all objections to the development plan which have been placed within a period of two months. Then the Minister himself has to consider the matter and to see what is behind it. He has to be satisfied. Again, we go through this procedure. Having done that, under Clause 11, which we have passed, the Minister makes an Order. The Order, by the terms of Clause 11, becomes a direction on the local education authority to proceed. I would remind the Committee that, under Clause 11,
the local education order for every area shall continue to regulate the duties of the local education authority.
In other words, having gone through this elaborate procedure, having got a development plan, confirmation of the Minister, and the making of an education order, it is then the duty of the local education authority to build that county school, of that particular type, in that particular spot.
Now, with my apologies to the Committee for having taken them so far back, I come to Clause 12. We have provided for the new school to go up and for it to be the duty of the local authority to do it. Let us turn to Clause 12 to see what is going to happen—I limit myself to the new county school—where the local education authority intend to establish one. We have gone through this procedure already; shall the local education authority build it? No. We start over again. The Clause says that they shall submit proposals to the Minister. A more scandalous duplication and delay in obedience to sectional interests it is difficult to imagine. Let us go on. We do not finish there. We go on to Subsection (3). It is duplicated again, because the matter goes back to the Minister. He has had it twice already. After it has gone to the Minister under


Sub-section (3) he will have to give public notice. Then the managers of schools affected—they have already been consulted before the plan was approved, and had an opportunity already of objecting to the Minister and so have been heard twice—for the third time are to have the right, according to the Clause, to come to the Minister and submit objections; for the third time. Not only that, but we provide another hurdle. Any ten local government electors—any ten sectional interests you like—have to be there.
Why this duplication? [An HON. MEMBER: "Waste of time."] It is not only a waste of time but it is another implied concession—hardly implied. It is an actual concession, although not in terms—to sectional interests. It is a concession to people who want to stand in the way of the plan being effective and new schools being built. The Amendment includes words to secure that there shall be no need to go through this procedure, which has already been gone through in connection with the development plan. I can imagine the procedure might be useful if it was desired to build new schools before a development plan had been approved. It would be sensible, in order to build schools ahead of the development plan, but when the development plan has been passed, this is only an invitation to every kind of obstructor, to the kind of people who say: "This is a wonderful Bill, and we want to see it in operation," because they dare not face it and oppose it, but who watch for every opportunity to put sprags in the wheel and prevent it from going full speed ahead.

Mr. Cove: It sounds to me like a bad Bill.

Mr. Ede: One must congratulate the hon. and learned Member upon the way in which he can tear a passion to tatters on the very slightest provocation.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Williams, whether it is in Order for Members of a Coalition Government to talk like this to one another?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not responsible for the way in which members of a party or of a Committee talk, to one another, so long as they do it within the bounds of Order.

Mr. Ede: After the language which my hon. and learned Friend has just used I am surprised that he should have felt at all hurt in the matter. The last thing I wanted to do was to hurt him. If he does feel hurt I willingly admit that it was a calm and reasoned speech. The hon. and learned Member has, I think, rather over stressed the amount of detail there will be in the development plan with regard to the schools. He said, for instance—I give just one example—that the development plan will show the spot on which the school will be situated. I very much doubt with regard to new schools whether it will show anything of the sort. It will say perhaps that in a particular town or village or district there will be a school of a particular kind built. When it comes to the actual submission of the plan it may very well be that the local education authority will propose to put it on a site that may bring it into competition with some of the other schools of the district, and members of other bodies of managers and governors will object that the school, if erected, will in some way prejudicially affect the school for which they are responsible. It may very well be that they will be quite satisfied, and were satisfied when the development plan was submitted, that a school in broad general terms in which it had been intimated was needed. It may even be that the inhabitants of the place themselves may very well feel they would sooner have it in some other part of the district than the one in which it is proposed to erect it.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the difference between the expression in Clause 10, Subsection (3):
The managers or governors of all schools … affected by the execution of the plan. …
and the expression in Clause 12, Subsection (3):
the managers or governors of any auxiliary school affected by the proposals. …

Mr. Ede: Clearly that was the point I was endeavouring to explain. The plan indicates generally that in a particular town or village, let us say, a county secondary school will be provided. It says nothing more than that. It will probably indicate the size of the school, of let us say a school for 500 secondary pupils. When it comes to the actual


placing of the school in a district, the locality, which was quite prepared to accept it in general terms, may have very strong views with regard to the actual location. I have, for instance, had to attend inquiries under the old Act where 10 ratepayers, as they then were, have turned up and objected very strongly to the proposal to place a school on a particular site that would involve a substantial number of children crossing a main road. The locality has very strong views indeed on occasion with regard to the exact situation of a school. If we are going to delay the development plan until, with respect to every new school, we indicate exactly where the site is and all the other details that will have to be available when the proposal is submitted, it is quite clear that we shall have imposed delays which all the day we have been trying to avoid.
Also this Clause enables 10 local government electors to make their views known. No such provision is made under the development plan. This does really give the point at which parents can make a most effective contribution to the settlement of the educational proposals for their district. For these reasons it is clearly desirable that even in respect of schools which have been included in the development plan, whether they are new schools or whether it is proposed to close an old school, there shall be specific local notice given so that the views of the locality can be made known and effectively heard. There is therefore no real duplication in this matter at all. Everyone throughout the day has been exceedingly anxious to secure two things which unless we are careful might be mutually destructive. The first is speed in the preparation of the development plan. The second is certainty that local views shall get an adequate voice in the settlement of the detailed proposals with regard to education. The Government in framing this gave consideration to the question as to whether it would be necessary, in respect of schools that had been included in a development plan, to make these proposals. We came to the conclusion that in dealing with new schools and with the closing of old schools, it was exceedingly desirable that the local people should have an effective opportunity of making their views known before the actual operation takes place.
I hope the Committee will feel that this is not an unreasonable provision with regard to new schools. One hopes that the development plan is going to look a good many years ahead in the framing of its proposals, and a perfectly general proposal in a development plan may be sufficient, provided everyone in the locality has an assurance that when the actual scheme for the new school or the closing of an old one is to be put into operation, they will be able to make their views heard. This will enable us to get rid of a good many objections on points of detail that might arise on the stage of the development plan unless we include in Clause 12 this opportunity for making proposals.

Major Woolley: Does the proposal cover existing schools, because Clause 12 (b) says:
to maintain as a county school any school which at the time being is not such a school.
Therefore the school may become a county school and not come within the proposal.

Mr. Ede: That is precisely the kind of thing on which the locality might desire to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Let us suppose that the managers of some voluntary school propose to hand a fabric over to the county to be maintained in future as a county school. Parents may very well say, "We would far sooner have a new county school than take over this building, for which we have never had any great respect in the past," and try to make their views known. I hope the Committee will realise that this is an endeavour, where the actual domesticity of the locality is being considered, to give parents of the children a really effective voice, because after all 100 local government electors only means five husbands and five wives, that is on the assumption that each one of them has only one wife and that they are law-abiding citizens. Seriously, this is an example of the way in which this Clause is an improvement on what is now the law because under the existing law you have to get 10 ratepayers. Very often you get an objection taken to the parent of a pupil on the ground that he is not a ratepayer. Now most parents come under the heading of local government electors and very rarely are the mothers of schoolchildren ratepayers. The only case, generally speaking, is where the mother is a widow. We really have endeavoured in this Clause


to make local wishes effective with regard to the domesticity of particular communities.

Mr. Cove: I have been consulting my hon. Friends on this side, and what troubles us is that you seem to give a few electors such a long period of time. We cannot believe that there is any justification for a mere 10 electors being able to hold up the thing for three months.

Mr. Ede: We are here re-enacting the existing law, which gives three months for 10 ratepayers or the managers of other schools to lodge their objections. Three months is not an unreasonable time to give these people, who have to hold their meetings, and, quite possibly, want to have local consultations with a view to avoiding raising objections. If they can get together to solve their problems, it may save the longer delay which would occur if they had to make their objections in a shorter time.

Mr. C. Davies: I am surprised at my hon. Friend's answer. When I saw the Amendment, I thought my hon. and learned Friend had filled in a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill. I had no idea that it was intended to duplicate in Clause 12 all that we had on Clause 10. I thought that my hon. and learned Friend was taking a long time to explain the obvious, which we had accepted. Now I find that it is really the intention of the Government that there shall be duplication, and, as a result, delay and more delay. The Parliamentary Secretary did not do justice to himself or to Clause 10. It was suggested that Clause 10 does not particularise, but merely deals with a general situation, and that only when you particularise would Clause 12 apply. They have to
specify which of the said schools the authority would propose and be county primary schools, county secondary schools
and so on respectively. Then it goes on:
specify what alterations are, by reason of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, required in the premises of any school proposed to be either a county school or an auxiliary school, and furnish estimates of the cost of those alterations.
Nothing could be more particular than that.

Mr. Ede: That does not cover the question of altering it from a county to an auxiliary school.

Mr. Davies: It says:
specify what alterations are, by reason of the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, required in the premises of any school proposed to be either a county school or an auxiliary school, and furnish estimates of the cost of those alterations.
Very well, you have a school now which is not a county school. Under the Bill that can be changed into a county school. If they propose to do so alterations will have to be made and they will have to specify them.

It being one hour after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — INFANT MORTALITY, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Major Markham: It is with considerable diffidence that I, an Englishman, rise to speak on a Scottish subject, but it is one in which, I think, all humanity is interested, namely, the question of infant mortality. Hon. Members will remember that up to 1941 Scottish infant mortality was rising very rapidly, and this House showed considerable concern at the position. The House welcomed very much the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland on 8th July, 1942:
I have been very concerned, as we all are, about our infantile mortality figures. The figure per 1,000 births rose from 68 … in 1939—and that in itself was a high figure—to 78 in 1940, and 83 in 1941. I have asked the Department of Health's Scientific Advisory Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir John Boyd Orr, to consider and report quickly, if they can, the causes of this rise and to suggest remedial measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1942; col. 787, Vol. 381.]
That statement was warmly welcomed. The House welcomed the fact that the Committee was to be set up, to go into the latest situation in regard to infant mortality. Yet in the introduction to the Report we find that "the Committee has confined itself to pre-war conditions." My first question is, Who changed the terms of reference? This House was given one set of terms of reference, the Committee has had another. The House was under the impression that the Committee would


go into infant mortality right up to date, yet the Committee has limited its investigations to pre-war conditions. The changes in diet, housing, employment, medical services, and so on have had a profound effect during the war years, and it would have been of very profound assistance, not only to Scotland but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and, indeed, to the Empire generally, if this Committee had carried out its terms of reference as the Secretary of State for Scotland announced them in this House.
I will refer to the Report, for convenience, as the Boyd Orr Report, although I understand, from the "Aberdeen Free Press" of 4th February, that Sir John Boyd Orr has denied that he had anything to do with the sub-committee which drew up the Report. One of the reasons given in this Report as to why the Committee has not gone into the war situation is that there is little information published for the war years. That, I suggest, is definitely untrue. There is a wealth of information available, not only as regards Scotland but as regards England and Wales, which would have done admirably for comparative purposes, and also as regards the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and so on.
I would remind the Minister that on 20th January, in this House, I asked for certain statistics up to August, 1943, and I was very pleasantly surprised at the wealth of information the right hon. Gentleman gave, not only in the course of that answer, but which he sent to me privately after. Much information relating to the war years was available, and I suggest that it is definitely untrue to suggest that there was no information which the Committee could have considered for that period. My second point is in regard to the Minister's foreword, and my purpose here is to be helpful and constructive. I am not concerned in damning anybody in this Report. I genuinely want to help. The Minister, in his foreword, says:
for the first time all the known comparisons are carefully marshalled.
That, I suggest, is untrue. There is no detailed comparison with other countries including Iceland, and I suggest Iceland deliberately because Northern Scotland and Iceland have to a large extent the same climatic conditions. There is no comparison with the great American cities which I suggest might be compared with

Glasgow, or any detailed comparison with Australia, and, of course, no diagnosis of war time fluctuations in any of these countries. Then the Minister goes on:
A medical committee of great experience and authority under the chairmanship of one of the leading scientists of our time, has diagnosed the cause or causes of the lamentable place Scotland takes among the great nations in the saving of infant life.
I suggest that that statement is not strictly accurate. My final quarrel with the Minister's introduction is this. He says:
Remedies and alleviations must be found for our infantile mortality position in the immediate post-war years.
The question obviously is—why not now? This question is urgent and important, and to adopt this attitude of "Let us see what happens after the war" is, to my mind, quite incredible on a vital problem of this importance.
May I now refer to the Report, and here I should like to say that I criticised some points in connection with this Report in the "British Medical Journal," for 5th February, and sent a copy of my letter to the Minister. My first point is that the statistical basis of the Report is poor. It is very evident that there was not a very good statistician at the service of this Committee. There are errors, very crude errors, such as I have never seen before in any Government publication, and perhaps one of the astonishing things is the fact that some of the comparative tables—from Table 1 to Table 29—are for the period 1934 to 1938, and I cannot understand why so ancient and limited a period should have been selected. The information for the immediate war years and early years of the war was available. The curious thing is that the section of the Report which deals with stillbirths does use information and statistics relating to the war years. If they could be used for stillbirths they could have been used on infant mortality as a whole. I will not go into the statistical errors in detail, but will furnish a list to the Minister if he will promise to circulate an errata slip to the Report through the usual channels. I would rather like to see that done.
But I do wish to refer to two statements—major errors. On page 30 of the Report it says:
Statistics relating to the percentage of the insured population unemployed in English cities are not available.


Every Member of the House knows that we had a magnificent struggle around these figures in pre-war years. The figures are available in the Ministry of Labour Unemployment Index right up to 1939. They were the bases of many discussions in this House over the distressed areas, and the reason why these statistics were not given to the Committee shows how sadly they were lacking in real statistical assistance.
Another astonishing statement, on page 61, is that
the rich both in England and Scotland have infantile mortality rates approaching the limit of what is attainable with present knowledge of how to control environment.
Considering that the English rate (Class I, page 16) is 33 per 1,000 and that for Scotland demonstrably higher, it is obvious that these figures will have to be reduced to a third before they approach or equal the New Zealand or Dutch figures for comparable classes. Actually, Chicago, New York, New Zealand, Utah and Iceland have already got a rate of 29 per thousand, and therefore there is a suggestion of deep pessimism in this passage of the Report unwarranted by the facts. Another statement on page 62 is that:
It is difficult and of doubtful value to make comparisons between the present Scottish services and those in other countries because the nature of the services varies and detailed information is difficult to procure.
There is the suggestion of a closed mind in such a sentence as that. It says in effect that Scotland is so perfect that they need not go anywhere else and that they can reduce their infantile mortality figures to a third of the present rate without considering what other areas have done. I would remind the House that not a single visit was paid by any member of the Committee, nor was any oral evidence taken. No effort was made, with the exception of a few letters sent to the United States, Australia and New Zealand, to find out what other countries were doing and yet the Minister says in his foreword:
All the known comparisons are carefully marshalled.
The statement that detailed information is difficult to procure is untrue. There is a wealth of information available here in London, and the Committee charged with this responsibility should have gone further and sought more widely for the remedies for this appalling situation in Scotland. May now I deal with the gaps in the Report? In the first place, there is

no mention of changes due to war conditions, such as reduction in unemployment and poverty and changes in diet, and diet is of some importance. There is no reference to national bread and to the fact that calcium and vitamin B1 have been added to it, and yet the tables in the Report would seem to say that the diet in Scotland is still deficient in these two important elements. There is no reference to problems caused by evacuation, or the effect on infantile mortality of the fuel shortage. There is no mention of alcoholism, which has a certain impact on infantile mortality. There is no mention of vitamin E, the reproductive vitamin which is important. I remember the old rhyme:
Vitamin E, Vitamin E,
That's the stuff for you and me.
It kills all the hopes of dear Marie Stopes,
And produces the seed for a good familie.
To omit all reference to vitamin E in a nutritional report on infantile mortality is deplorable. Another gap is that there is no information regarding the difference between the infantile mortality rates in ordinary homes and institutions. That would have been extremely useful. There is no mention that in other countries the rate is as low as 29 per cent. Most of the overseas comparisons are from six to 10 years old.
When we come to Scottish conditions, there is no mention of the new Simpson Memorial Hospital at Edinburgh, which has air-conditioned wards. One would like to know whether they are successful or not. There is no mention of "Infant Life," which is a publication of the American Children's Bureau and possibly the most important publication issued in America dealing with infantile mortality. It has a circulation of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It is the publication on which the instruction of expectant mothers is based in the United States, yet the Committee apparently has not seen it, and does not know of its existence. I repeat that when the Minister says that "all the known comparisons are carefully marshalled" and that the Committee "has diagnosed the cause or causes of the lamentable place Scotland takes," such a statement demands some explanation. The Report, too, should have given some attention to environmental conditions, including smoke and fog.
There is not the slightest doubt that smoke and fog combined play a very large


part in general bad health and in infant mortality. If you compare the winter sickness and death rates against the summer, the winter is always 50 per cent. higher and very often 100 per cent. This Report says that the winter has very little effect on infantile mortality. Throughout the world you will find this swing from winter to summer, and there is obviously something in the climate which affects infant life. For that reason the Americans have tackled this problem from the point-of-view of air conditioning and have made a great success of it. There is also the question of fuel, which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised in the House the other day. It is very important, from the point-of-view of the proper warmth of the mother and child in those most important days, and the ideal temperatures are several degrees higher than those in the average Scottish home. I am now on my last two minutes or I would have liked to quote from the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Nottingham, 1942, on this question of smoke and fog, but perhaps hon. Members will look that up for themselves.
May I finish by making nine constructive suggestions to the Minister? They are these. First of all, that when he considers infantile mortality from the point of view of a broad programme, he should give attention to these questions of environmental conditions, and that temperatures for all new-born babies should be kept as far as possible to 70 to 75 degrees night and day, which is the American ideal, and has helped greatly to reduce infantile deaths there.

Dr. Haden Guest: Is that in the Glasgow tenements?

Major Markham: That is an ideal to be aimed at. It can be worked. The next point is that all premature infants should be reported within an hour, and that there should be electrically-heated ambulances to bring them into hospital and scientifically heated wards or incubators. That may be a policy of idealism, but it must be aimed at if you want to keep mortality down. Then there should be intensive training for special nurses to deal with premature infants on the lines of the Chicago development. Clinics and infant welfare services should be improved

by making them clean, warm and comfortable. Next, the Minister should set up a committee of non-medical men to go into these environmental factors in infant life—

Dr. Morģan: Why?

Major Markham: With special consideration to recent developments in the United States. Next, he should press ahead with housing and heating and ventilation appliances. The next point is that he should embark upon a national campaign for adolescent and expectant mothers on the lines of the Chicago campaign, and finally—and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I have said—he should break down the old fallacy that the Scots are a hardy race. They are not a hardy race. Their infantile mortality is higher than almost any other part of Europe. The expectation of life is four years less than the average Englishman's. Their death rate is higher. He should get the Scot to admit frankly that 5,000 Scottish children die every year from dirt, cold, and ignorance.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I would have welcomed a discussion on this matter, but there is not enough time left and I have a wide field to cover.

Mr. Buchanan: We have been promised a day for discussing this question. It is most unfair of the hon. and gallant Member to come in for half-an-hour when the Government have promised us a full day to discuss the matter.

Major Markham: This was arranged before the hon. Member raised it in the House.

Mr. Johnston: In any case the Government's promise to afford facilities through the usual channels for an adequate discussion on this matter still stands. May I, as briefly as I can, seek to cover some of the difficult points which the hon. and gallant Member has raised? First of all, the composition of the Scientific Advisory Committee, who co-opted the Boyd Orr Committee, is Sir John Boyd Orr himself, Professor Carl Hamilton Browning, Professor Crew, Professor Daly, Sir John Fraser—the most eminent surgeon we have—Professor David Murray Lyon, Sir Alexander MacGregor—Medical Officer of


Health for the largest city in Scotland—Professor MacKie, Sir Edward Mellanby—the secretary of the United Kingdom Medical Research Council—and Professor Tulloch. This is the parent body which selected or co-opted the Boyd Orr Committee. Who did they co-opt? They co-opted Doctor Baird—Regius Professor of Midwifery at Aberdeen—Doctor Douglas—chief Maternity and Child Welfare Officer of the Department of Health for Scotland. I will say something about their qualifications in a moment.
They co-opted the matron of the hospital, the Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, which has had, since 1939, the very air conditioning experiments to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. She was a member of this Committee, so she did know about the experiments in Chicago without requiring to go there and see them. Other members of the Committee were Dr. Stanley Graham, Visiting Physician, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow; Dr. James Hendry, Regius Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Glasgow; Dr. Isabella Leitch, Deputy Director, Imperial Bureau of Animal Nutrition, Aberdeenshire; Dr. Jean Mackintosh, Regional Medical Officer for Maternity and Child Welfare, Aberdeen; Dr. Peter McKinlay, a very eminent statistician; Dr. Charles McNeil, Professor of Child Life and Health, University of Edinburgh; Dr. Margaret Scott-Dickson, Maternity and Child Welfare Department, Dundee; Dr. Elenora Simpson, The James MacKenzie Institute, St. Andrews; and, lastly, Dr. Nora Wattie, Senior Child Welfare Medical Officer for Glasgow.
I submit that nobody could have selected a more eminently qualified Committee than this. This Committee gave the reason why they did not analyse the war-time trend. They said that the reason governing their decision was that there was little published information for the war years. That is true. They said that the most important environmental conditions of diet, housing, employment and medical services are highly abnormal in most areas. That, also, is true. It is impossible, they said, to judge to what extent any of the changes which have incurred since 1939 are likely to be permanent.
From my point of view it would have been highly desirable that the Committee should have analysed war-time trends, if possible, because the trend is going down. Scotland, last year, had the lowest infant mortality in her history. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was it?"] It was 65 per 1,000. The point is that the Committee did not analyse the downward trend in the war years because, as they said, of the difficulty of getting a comparison, of getting accurate statistical data which would warrant conclusions being drawn from it. The hon. and gallant Member asked why the Committee did not pay a special visit to America and New Zealand. Well, the obvious answer is in the Appendix, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at it. There he will see an enormous list of the qualifications which five members of the Committee have as regards their knowledge of these things abroad. For example, Dr. Douglas, the chief maternity and welfare officer of the Department of Health, has qualifications and has knowledge of New Zealand, and other members of the Committee have been to Scandinavia and have knowledge of conditions there. There is another member who has actually got the air conditioning apparatus which the hon. and gallant Member so highly commended.

Dr. Haden Guest: Which he obviously knew nothing about.

Mr. Johnston: An hon. Gentleman said, What about coal? It is true that Sir William Beveridge draws attention to the fact that Scotland consumes about 13 per cent. less coal than the English household, but Titmuss goes out of his way to show that fuel conditions are not the cause of the whole of infant mortality in Holland, for example, and draws attention to the fact that the rate in Iceland, a very cold climate I should think, is 28.3 per thousand live births, and therefore in his judgment this question of heating the household is not a primary factor. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the New Zealand figure. We have to take great care in using foreign, colonial and Dominion comparisons. It is true that the New Zealand figure is 29, but that figure excludes the Maori figure, which is 97. I have not time to go into all these comparisons but let us compare like with like. It is hardly fair to exclude coloured populations and so on from your statistics and then compare them with


purely white figures of this sort. In July, 1939, our unemployment figure in Scotland was 11.5. In January, 1944, it is down to one, and I believe one of the component parts in causing the reduction in the infant mortality rate is the fact that there is a bigger income and that more purchasing power is coming into the home.
I should like to say a word or two about what we are trying to do. We are doing a great deal. Our maternity homes have gone up 50 per cent.—and that is a big figure—during the war time, and we have 108 other maternity beds that we might use, which have been kept in very rural areas. If the women of the

country want the use of these 108 maternity beds they will get them. Lastly, the local authority associations, which have been consulted, are doing everything they can, and have promised to do everything they can, by increasing the intakes of orange juice, vitamin tablets and the rest of it, and by requisitioning more of the large houses in particular areas—

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.